[ { "id": "thule-expansion", "name": "Thule Inuit expansion across the Arctic", "region": "North America", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 1200–1400", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1200, "end": 1400 } ], "story": "Around 1200 CE, Thule whalers expanded east from Alaska through the Canadian Arctic and into Greenland. Late Dorset communities persisted in parts of the central and eastern Canadian Arctic and northwest Greenland during that broad expansion; radiocarbon evidence places Late Dorset occupation after 1300 in southeastern Victoria Island, with Thule settlement in adjacent regions. The regional succession is clear, but direct contact, violence, and a Thule-caused expulsion remain unproved. This northern Dorset–Thule history is separate from the southwest Greenland farm districts settled by the Norse around 985, where no reviewed evidence places a resident Late Dorset community at landnám.", "displaced": [ "Late Dorset people (Tuniit)" ], "settlers": [ "Thule Inuit (ancestral Inuit), from northern Alaska and the Bering Strait" ], "note": "An expansion case, not a claim that Inuit are foreign colonizers in any modern legal sense. Thule people are the direct ancestors of today's Inuit. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "thule_dorset", "thule_dates", "norse_seaver" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Central and eastern Canadian Arctic — regional succession and documented late Dorset persistence", "lon": -106, "lat": 71.5 }, { "name": "Northwest Greenland — Late Dorset and later Thule occupation", "lon": -69.2124, "lat": 76.3365 }, { "name": "Greenland Thule settlement", "lon": -45, "lat": 70 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "North Alaska & the Bering Strait", "lon": -160, "lat": 69 } ], "contested": "Late Dorset and Thule occupation overlapped or were adjacent in parts of the central/eastern Canadian Arctic and northwest Greenland. That does not by itself establish face-to-face contact or direct displacement. The map does not place Late Dorset residents in the southwest Norse settlement districts in 985.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "teutonic-prussia", "name": "Teutonic conquest & colonization of Prussia", "region": "Europe", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1226–c. 1400", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1226, "end": 1400 } ], "story": "In 1226 the Golden Bull of Rimini, an imperial charter from Frederick II, handed the Teutonic Order a crusade against the pagan Old Prussians. Fifty years of war broke them, and the Great Prussian Uprising of 1260–74 was the last serious resistance. Behind the knights came castles, chartered towns under Kulm law, and German-speaking farmers, and the Baltic-speaking Prūsai were killed, subjected, Christianized and slowly absorbed until their language died out entirely by the eighteenth century.", "displaced": [ "Old Prussians, the Prūsai (Pomesanians, Sambians, Nadruvians and others)" ], "settlers": [ "German-speaking colonists of the Holy Roman Empire", "the Teutonic Order" ], "sources": [ "pluskowski", "teutonic_prussia" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Kulmerland / Chełmno", "lon": 18.5, "lat": 53.3 }, { "name": "Old Prussia / Sambia", "lon": 20.5, "lat": 54.8 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "German lands of the Empire", "lon": 11, "lat": 51 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "medieval-valencia", "name": "Christian colonization of Valencia", "region": "Europe", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1238–c. 1400", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1238, "end": 1400 } ], "story": "When James I of Aragon took Valencia in 1238, scribes wrote the colonization down in the Llibre del Repartiment, house by house and field by field, the property of a Muslim kingdom handed to Christian settlers from Catalonia and Aragon. The newcomers ruled as a minority over a Mudéjar majority for generations, colonial settlement without immediate demographic replacement. Robert Burns called it exactly that, medieval colonialism, the exploitation of a subject population through tax and lordship.", "displaced": [ "Muslim Valencians (Mudéjars)", "later Moriscos" ], "settlers": [ "Christian settlers from Catalonia and Aragon" ], "note": "A localized medieval case. The later forced conversions and the 1609 expulsion of the Moriscos belong to a longer history not shown here as one continuous phase. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "medieval_valencia" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Kingdom of Valencia", "lon": -0.4, "lat": 39.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Crown of Aragon & Catalan counties", "lon": 1.2, "lat": 41.4 } ], "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "nam-tien", "name": "Vietnamese southward expansion (Nam tiến)", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1069–1832", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1069, "end": 1832, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1069–1470: Đại Việt–Champa frontier; 1471–1611: After the fall of Vijaya; 1611–1757: Nguyễn settlement down the central coast; 1757–1832: Mekong delta incorporation.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1069, "end": 1470, "label": "Đại Việt–Champa frontier", "note": "Đại Việt–Champa frontier. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1471, "end": 1611, "label": "After the fall of Vijaya", "note": "After the fall of Vijaya. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1611, "end": 1757, "label": "Nguyễn settlement down the central coast", "note": "Nguyễn settlement down the central coast. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 }, { "start": 1757, "end": 1832, "label": "Mekong delta incorporation", "note": "Mekong delta incorporation. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 4 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Over seven centuries the Vietnamese state moved south, absorbing the Cham and Khmer lands along the coast. The hinge was 1471, when Lê Thánh Tông stormed the Cham capital Vijaya. Vietnamese annals claim 60,000 killed and 30,000 taken, an event George Dutton frames as the genocide of Champa. Nguyễn lords then colonized the Khmer Mekong delta, including Prey Nokor, the future Saigon, before Minh Mạng annexed the last Cham principality in 1832.", "displaced": [ "Cham (Chăm)", "Khmer / Khmer Krom" ], "settlers": [ "Kinh (Việt) settlers under Đại Việt and the Nguyễn" ], "note": "The familiar image of one smooth “southward march” hides long pauses and sharp regional differences. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "champa", "nam_tien" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Former Champa coast", "lon": 109, "lat": 13.8 }, { "name": "Mekong Delta", "lon": 105.7, "lat": 10.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Red River Delta", "lon": 106, "lat": 20.8 }, { "name": "Nguyễn realm at Huế", "lon": 107.6, "lat": 16.5 } ], "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: A 763-year umbrella conflates conquest of Cham polities, Vietnamese settler movement, incorporation of the Mekong delta, and later Nguyễn state colonization; each phase affected different peoples and places.", "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "inca-mitma", "name": "Inca resettlement system (mitma)", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "partial", "dates": "c. 1438–1533", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1438, "end": 1533 } ], "story": "The Inca colonized from within. From Pachacuti's reign the state uprooted whole communities, the mitmaqkuna, and transplanted them across Tawantinsuyu. Loyal colonists were planted among the newly conquered, rebels scattered far from home, farmers moved to open the maize estates of the Cochabamba valley. Cañari and Chachapoya potters carried Cusco techniques a thousand kilometres north, a physical trace of forced migration. The Spanish conquest shattered the system, and the displaced tried to walk home.", "contested": "Applying “settler colonialism” to an Indigenous Andean empire is debated, and mitma is more often described as imperial resettlement. It is here as an internal-colonization case.", "displaced": [ "Quechua (Runa)", "Aymara", "Cañari", "Chachapoya", "Colla & Lupaca" ], "settlers": [ "Mitmaqkuna (Inca state colonists)" ], "sources": [ "inca_davidson", "inca_lara" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Cochabamba valley (state maize colonies)", "lon": -66.16, "lat": -17.39 }, { "name": "Quito / northern Andes", "lon": -78.52, "lat": -0.18 }, { "name": "Lake Titicaca basin", "lon": -69.52, "lat": -16 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Cusco (imperial core)", "lon": -71.97, "lat": -13.52 }, { "name": "Chachapoyas", "lon": -77.87, "lat": -6.23 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "plantations-ireland", "name": "Plantations of Ireland", "region": "Europe", "fit": "core", "dates": "1550s–17th century", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1556, "end": 1570, "label": "Laois–Offaly plantation", "note": "Laois–Offaly plantation. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case." }, { "start": 1583, "end": 1641, "label": "Munster plantation", "note": "Munster plantation. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case." }, { "start": 1609, "end": 1641, "label": "Ulster plantation", "note": "Ulster plantation. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case." }, { "start": 1649, "end": 1660, "label": "Cromwellian confiscation and settlement", "note": "Cromwellian confiscation and settlement. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case." } ], "story": "England colonized Ireland by planting it. The policy opened under Mary I with Laois–Offaly in 1556, ran through Munster after the Desmond wars, and reached its scale in Ulster from 1609, where six escheated counties were parcelled to English and Scottish settlers. By 1641 perhaps 100,000 British migrants had arrived, tens of thousands of them Lowland Scots. Catholic-held land fell from around three-fifths of the island to a seventh by 1703 as war and confiscation did their work.", "displaced": [ "Gaelic Irish (Gaeil)", "Old English Catholic landholders" ], "settlers": [ "English and Welsh planters (New English)", "Lowland Scots (Ulster Scots)", "London livery companies" ], "sources": [ "ireland", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Ulster", "lon": -7.2, "lat": 54.7 }, { "name": "Munster & other plantation zones", "lon": -8.5, "lat": 52.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "England", "lon": -1.5, "lat": 52.5 }, { "name": "Scotland", "lon": -4, "lat": 56 } ], "placeGloss": "The English Pale was the long-established zone of English crown control around Dublin, distinct from the later plantation zones shown here.", "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: Laois–Offaly, Munster, Ulster, and Cromwellian confiscation were separate projects with different dates, sponsors, settler streams, and removals.", "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "bashkir-lands", "name": "Volga–Ural & Bashkir lands", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1552–19th century", "extent": "regional", "zoomFloor": 104, "periods": [ { "start": 1552, "end": 1700, "label": "Annexation, forts, and early settlement", "note": "Annexation, forts, and early settlement. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case." }, { "start": 1734, "end": 1775, "label": "Orenburg lines and Bashkir resistance", "note": "Orenburg lines and Bashkir resistance. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case." }, { "start": 1798, "end": 1900, "label": "Survey, factory, and peasant colonization", "note": "Survey, factory, and peasant colonization. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case." } ], "story": "After Kazan fell in 1552 the Bashkirs kept their patrimonial land rights on paper, and lost them in practice. Forts at Ufa and Orenburg anchored colonization, and revolt after revolt was crushed, in 1662, 1704, 1735–40, and again under Salawat Yulayev in the Pugachev rising. Between 1869 and 1878 alone the state alienated nearly a million desiatinas of Bashkir land through forced sales. Edyta Bojanowska's study shows even Tolstoy buying Bashkir steppe cheap while its nomads were pushed off.", "displaced": [ "Bashkirs (Basqorttar)" ], "settlers": [ "Russian peasant colonists", "nobles buying alienated land", "Orenburg Cossacks" ], "sources": [ "bashkir", "russian_periphery" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Bashkir & southern Ural lands", "lon": 56.1, "lat": 54.7 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Russian imperial core", "lon": 38, "lat": 55.5 } ], "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: The case compresses imperial annexation, repeated Bashkir uprisings, land-survey expropriation, factory and peasant settlement, and nineteenth-century agrarian colonization into one undifferentiated arc.", "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "circassia", "name": "Circassia", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "strong", "dates": "1763–1864+", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1763, "end": 1880 } ], "story": "The end of the Russo-Circassian war in 1864 was also the emptying of a homeland. When the last resistance broke at Qbaada above Sochi, Russia expelled the Adyghe wholesale to the Ottoman Empire. Walter Richmond estimates at least 600,000 dead of massacre, starvation and exposure, roughly three-quarters of the Circassian people. The survivors scattered to Turkey, Jordan and Syria, and Cossack colonists settled the cleared coast.", "displaced": [ "Circassians / Adyghe", "Ubykh", "Abazins", "Abkhaz" ], "settlers": [ "Kuban & Black Sea Cossacks", "Russian and Ukrainian peasant colonists" ], "sources": [ "circassia", "circassia_kreiten" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Northwestern Caucasus", "lon": 39.4, "lat": 44.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Russian imperial core", "lon": 38, "lat": 55.5 }, { "name": "Cossack frontier", "lon": 40, "lat": 47 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "kazakh-steppe", "name": "Kazakh Steppe", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "strong", "dates": "1730s–1930s", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1730, "end": 1867, "label": "Imperial incorporation and Cossack lines", "note": "Imperial incorporation and Cossack lines. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case." }, { "start": 1868, "end": 1916, "label": "Late-imperial peasant colonization", "note": "Late-imperial peasant colonization. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case." }, { "start": 1928, "end": 1933, "label": "Collectivization, famine, and demographic rupture", "note": "Collectivization, famine, and demographic rupture. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case." } ], "story": "Russian protection over the Kazakh khans, sworn in 1731, hardened into land seizure. Roughly 1.5 million settlers from European Russia and Ukraine took the pasture in the late-tsarist colonization surge, and the khanates were abolished outright. Then Soviet collectivization brought famine: Sarah Cameron finds about 1.5 million dead in 1930–33, some 1.3 million of them Kazakhs, proportionally the worst toll of any Soviet nationality. It left Kazakhs a minority in their own republic for decades.", "displaced": [ "Kazakhs (Qazaqtar)" ], "settlers": [ "Russian and Ukrainian peasant settlers", "Cossack hosts" ], "sources": [ "kazakh", "russian_periphery" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Northern Kazakh Steppe", "lon": 68, "lat": 51 }, { "name": "Central Kazakh Steppe", "lon": 67, "lat": 47.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "European Russia", "lon": 39, "lat": 54 }, { "name": "Ukraine", "lon": 31.2, "lat": 49 } ], "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: Imperial conquest, Cossack lines, late-imperial peasant colonization, Soviet collectivization and famine, and later demographic engineering are distinct processes; the existing case hides the breaks.", "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "russian-far-east", "name": "Russian Far East", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "strong", "dates": "1858–20th century", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1858, "end": 1991, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1858–1905: Annexation and Cossack settlement; 1906–1917: Peasant colonization; 1922–1991: Soviet settlement and security removals.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1858, "end": 1905, "label": "Annexation and Cossack settlement", "note": "Annexation and Cossack settlement. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1906, "end": 1917, "label": "Peasant colonization", "note": "Peasant colonization. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1922, "end": 1991, "label": "Soviet settlement and security removals", "note": "Soviet settlement and security removals. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "The treaties of Aigun and Peking, 1858–60, handed Russia the Amur and Ussuri from a weakened Qing, and the Cossack hosts moved onto the river line. Subsidized steamship passage from Odesa filled it fast. By 1913 about 250,000 peasants had arrived, three-quarters of them Ukrainian, which gave the settlement belt its name, Zelenyi Klyn, the Green Wedge. The Nanai, Udege, Nivkh and Orochi became small minorities, and in 1937 the Soviet state deported 172,000 Koreans to Central Asia to finish reordering the coast.", "displaced": [ "Nanai (Nani)", "Udege", "Ulch", "Nivkh", "Orochi", "Negidal", "Evenki" ], "settlers": [ "Amur & Ussuri Cossacks", "Russian and Ukrainian peasant settlers" ], "sources": [ "russian_periphery", "far_east_stephan" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Amur region", "lon": 128, "lat": 50.5 }, { "name": "Primorye", "lon": 135, "lat": 45.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "European Russia", "lon": 39, "lat": 54 }, { "name": "Ukraine", "lon": 31.2, "lat": 49 } ], "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: Annexation from Qing China, Cossack and peasant settlement, Indigenous dispossession, anti-Chinese violence, Korean removal, and Soviet security deportations cannot be treated as one event.", "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "sapmi", "name": "Sápmi", "region": "Europe", "fit": "partial", "dates": "17th–20th centuries", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1600, "end": 2000, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1600–1850: Agricultural and religious colonization; 1751–1919: Borders and reindeer-pastoral restrictions; 1850–2000: Mining, schooling, and assimilation.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1600, "end": 1850, "label": "Agricultural and religious colonization", "note": "Agricultural and religious colonization. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1751, "end": 1919, "label": "Borders and reindeer-pastoral restrictions", "note": "Borders and reindeer-pastoral restrictions. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1850, "end": 2000, "label": "Mining, schooling, and assimilation", "note": "Mining, schooling, and assimilation. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Four states enclosed the Sámi north. Swedish colonization pushed in from the 1630s with silver mining at Nasafjäll, which conscripted Sámi to haul ore by reindeer, and a 1673 proclamation then invited farmers onto Sámi taxed lands. Norway's Norwegianization ran from 1851 to the 1980s, banning the language in schools, while Sweden's nomad-school policy kept reindeer-herding Sámi in separate, inferior classrooms. Åsa Össbo reads the mining, the hydropower dams and today's wind farms as one long industrial colonialism.", "displaced": [ "Sámi (Sámit / Sápmelaccaš)" ], "settlers": [ "Swedish and Finnish agrarian settlers", "Norwegian farmers and fishers", "Russian/Soviet industrial settlers on Kola" ], "sources": [ "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Nordic Sápmi", "lon": 20, "lat": 68.2 }, { "name": "Kola Sápmi", "lon": 34, "lat": 68 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Southern Nordic state cores", "lon": 15, "lat": 59 }, { "name": "Russian state core", "lon": 38, "lat": 55.5 } ], "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: Four states used different settlement, taxation, schooling, mining, border-closure, and land policies over several centuries; a single cross-border case erases those differences.", "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "han-taiwan", "name": "Han settlement of Taiwan", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "core", "dates": "17th–19th centuries", "extent": "island", "periods": [ { "start": 1624, "end": 1895, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1624–1683: Dutch recruitment and Zheng military settlement; 1683–1895: Qing migration and Indigenous frontier expansion.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1624, "end": 1683, "label": "Dutch recruitment and Zheng military settlement", "note": "Dutch recruitment and Zheng military settlement. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1683, "end": 1895, "label": "Qing migration and Indigenous frontier expansion", "note": "Qing migration and Indigenous frontier expansion. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Han Taiwan grew from a few thousand to a few million in two centuries. Hoklo migrants from Fujian and Hakka from Guangdong crossed the strait under the Dutch, the Zheng regime and then the Qing, and a Qing count in 1811 recorded 1.9 million people, overwhelmingly Han. The plains Austronesian peoples, the Siraya, Babuza and others, lost their land through Qing leasing and mortgage law and were absorbed, while the mountain nations held out until Japanese campaigns after 1895.", "displaced": [ "Plains (Pingpu) peoples such as Siraya and Babuza", "mountain nations such as Atayal, Paiwan and Bunun" ], "settlers": [ "Hoklo (southern Fujianese) migrants", "Hakka from Guangdong" ], "sources": [ "taiwan", "taiwan_liu" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Taiwan", "lon": 120.9, "lat": 23.7 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Fujian", "lon": 118.1, "lat": 25.8 }, { "name": "Guangdong", "lon": 113.3, "lat": 23.2 } ], "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 4, "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: Dutch recruitment, Zheng military settlement, Qing frontier expansion, and Japanese colonial land policy are not one continuous Han settlement event; Indigenous land loss must be periodized.", "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "dzungaria", "name": "Dzungaria", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "strong", "dates": "1755–1820", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1755, "end": 1820, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1755–1758: Destruction of the Zünghars; 1759–1820: Resettling the cleared land.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1755, "end": 1758, "label": "Destruction of the Zünghars", "note": "Qing armies annihilate the Zünghar polity.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1759, "end": 1820, "label": "Resettling the cleared land", "note": "Multiethnic resettlement of the emptied land.", "sequenceStep": 2 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "The Qing did not just conquer the Zünghars. They erased them. In 1755–58 the Qianlong emperor's armies, aided by smallpox, destroyed the Oirat Mongol state of Dzungaria, and Peter Perdue and others estimate that 70–80% of the population died or fled, on the order of half a million people. Then the Qing repopulated the emptied land from 1759 with Han and Hui farmers, Manchu and Sibe bannermen, and Taranchi Uyghur cultivators. It was a deliberate colonization of a cleared frontier.", "displaced": [ "Zünghars (Oirat / western Mongols)" ], "settlers": [ "Han & Hui farmers from Gansu-Shaanxi", "Manchu, Sibe & Chahar bannermen", "Taranchi Uyghurs" ], "note": "The incoming population was deliberately mixed, not a Han-only movement. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; high confidence.", "sources": [ "dzungar", "perdue" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Dzungarian Basin", "lon": 85, "lat": 45.2 }, { "name": "Ili Valley", "lon": 81.3, "lat": 43.9 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Gansu & Shaanxi", "lon": 105, "lat": 35.8 }, { "name": "Manchuria / Sibe garrisons", "lon": 124, "lat": 45 } ], "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: The destruction of the Dzungar polity and population, postwar repopulation by multiple groups, and later military-agricultural colonization are causally linked but distinct events.", "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "inner-mongolia-han", "name": "Han settlement of Inner Mongolia", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1902–present", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1902, "end": 2026, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1902–1911: Late-Qing cultivation policy; 1912–1949: Republican migration and frontier administration; 1949–1978: PRC state farms and collectivization; 1978–2026: Reform-era urban and resource expansion.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1902, "end": 1911, "label": "Late-Qing cultivation policy", "note": "Late-Qing cultivation policy. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1912, "end": 1949, "label": "Republican migration and frontier administration", "note": "Republican migration and frontier administration. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1949, "end": 1978, "label": "PRC state farms and collectivization", "note": "PRC state farms and collectivization. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 }, { "start": 1978, "end": 2026, "label": "Reform-era urban and resource expansion", "note": "Reform-era urban and resource expansion. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 4 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Inner Mongolia became a Han land through the plow. From about 1902 the late-Qing “New Policies” reversed the old ban and opened Mongol banner pasture to farming, pushing herders toward sedentarization and provoking the duguilang revolts. Warlords and settlers kept coming, and then the PRC drove large-scale in-migration from the 1950s through state farms and industry. Mongols, roughly a fifth of the region in 1949, fell to about 17–18% of some 24 million people, a minority in their own autonomous region.", "contested": "Beijing frames the region as an integral autonomous region and the migration as internal development, while the settler-colonial reading comes mainly from outside scholars such as Uradyn Bulag. Worldwide audit correction: Late-Qing cultivation policy, Republican-era migration, PRC state farms, collectivization, and post-1978 urban expansion have different institutions and local effects.", "displaced": [ "Mongols (Öbür Mongghol, incl. Chahar, Ordos and Bargas)" ], "settlers": [ "Han Chinese farmers and, later, state-organized migrants" ], "sources": [ "innermongolia_wang", "innermongolia_bulag", "innermongolia_mrg" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Hohhot (Kökeqota)", "lon": 111.75, "lat": 40.84 }, { "name": "Ordos", "lon": 109.78, "lat": 39.61 }, { "name": "Hulunbuir", "lon": 119.77, "lat": 49.21 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "North China Plain", "lon": 117, "lat": 37 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "tibet-han-migration", "name": "Han in-migration in Tibetan areas", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1950–present", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1950, "end": 2026, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1950–1965: Military-administrative incorporation; 1966–1978: Collectivization and Cultural Revolution; 1978–2026: Development, relocation, and disputed demographic change.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1950, "end": 1965, "label": "Military-administrative incorporation", "note": "Military-administrative incorporation. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1966, "end": 1978, "label": "Collectivization and Cultural Revolution", "note": "Collectivization and Cultural Revolution. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1978, "end": 2026, "label": "Development, relocation, and disputed demographic change", "note": "Development, relocation, and disputed demographic change. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "The People's Liberation Army entered eastern Tibet in 1950, and the Seventeen Point Agreement formalized Chinese sovereignty in 1951. Emily Yeh's Taming Tibet shows how state development remade Lhasa and drew Han traders and workers into its economy, accelerated by the Qinghai–Tibet railway in 2006. Han remain a minority in the Tibet Autonomous Region proper, and Andrew Fischer reads the 2020 census at about 12%, but they dominate its towns and are far more numerous in the Tibetan areas of Qinghai and Sichuan.", "contested": "Genuinely disputed. Gerald Roche and Ju-Han Zoe Wang argue the case through settler-colonial theory, while the People's Republic rejects the frame, calling 1950–51 the peaceful liberation of Tibet and noting that Han remain a TAR minority. Worldwide audit correction: The entry must distinguish voluntary and state-facilitated migration, military-administrative control, pastoralist relocation, boarding schools, and disputed claims of demographic replacement.", "displaced": [ "Tibetans (Böpa)" ], "settlers": [ "Han Chinese migrants (cadres, workers, traders) and state personnel" ], "sources": [ "tibet_yeh", "tibet_wangroche", "tibet_fischer" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Lhasa", "lon": 91.14, "lat": 29.65 }, { "name": "Xining / Amdo (Qinghai)", "lon": 101.78, "lat": 36.62 }, { "name": "Shigatse", "lon": 88.88, "lat": 29.27 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Han core provinces (Sichuan, Gansu)", "lon": 104.07, "lat": 30.67 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "hokkaido", "name": "Hokkaidō", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "core", "dates": "1869–present", "extent": "island", "periods": [ { "start": 1869, "end": 2026, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1869–1899: Meiji settler colonization and land survey; 1899–1945: Assimilation and land consolidation; 1945–2026: Development policy and continuing Ainu land claims.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1869, "end": 1899, "label": "Meiji settler colonization and land survey", "note": "Meiji settler colonization and land survey. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1899, "end": 1945, "label": "Assimilation and land consolidation", "note": "Assimilation and land consolidation. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1945, "end": 2026, "label": "Development policy and continuing Ainu land claims", "note": "Development policy and continuing Ainu land claims. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "In 1869 the Meiji state annexed Ezo, renamed it Hokkaidō, and set up a Colonization Commission that spent 20 million yen settling the island. From 1874 samurai-farmer militia colonists took Ainu land, and the population passed a million by 1901. The 1899 Former Aborigines Protection Act gave Ainu poorer farmland and forced Japanese schooling, and stood until 1997. Only in 2019 did Japan recognize the Ainu as an Indigenous people, and a survey counts about 13,000, widely thought an undercount.", "displaced": [ "Ainu" ], "settlers": [ "Wajin (ethnic Japanese) migrants, especially from Tōhoku", "farmer-soldier colonists" ], "sources": [ "hokkaido", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Hokkaidō", "lon": 142.5, "lat": 43.4 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Honshū & the Japanese state core", "lon": 138.2, "lat": 36.3 } ], "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 4, "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: Meiji settler colonization, land survey and dispossession, assimilation, and twentieth-century development are presented as one open-ended process without separating policy shifts or Ainu regions.", "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "japanese-korea", "name": "Japanese Korea", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1876–1945", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1876, "end": 1945 } ], "story": "Japanese settlers reached Korea from the 1876 treaty ports, three decades before annexation, and some 170,000 were already there in 1910. Jun Uchida calls them the brokers of empire. Their number neared 700,000 by the 1940s, one of the century's largest colonial settler communities, expanding on the back of a 1910–18 cadastral survey and the Oriental Development Company's landholdings. In 1945 nearly all of them were repatriated, reversing the settlement order in a single year.", "displaced": [ "Koreans (dominated and dispossessed in place)" ], "settlers": [ "Japanese civilian settlers (merchants, officials and farmers)" ], "sources": [ "korea_uchida", "japanese_empire" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Korean Peninsula", "lon": 127.5, "lat": 37.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Japanese archipelago", "lon": 137, "lat": 36 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "japanese-micronesia", "name": "Japanese Micronesia", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1914–1945", "extent": "island", "periods": [ { "start": 1914, "end": 1945 } ], "story": "Japan seized Germany's Micronesian islands in 1914 and ran them as the Nan'yō. Sugar drew settlers by the tens of thousands, most from Okinawa: by 1937 Japanese outnumbered Islanders across the whole mandate, about 62,000 to 50,000, and Saipan's Garapan was nearly all Japanese. In Palau, incomers were 60% of the population by 1935. Japan's 1945 defeat repatriated almost all of them, and the settler order collapsed as fast as it had risen.", "displaced": [ "CHamoru & Refaluwasch (Northern Marianas)", "Palauans", "Chuukese, Pohnpeians, Yapese, Kosraeans", "Marshallese" ], "settlers": [ "Japanese home-island migrants", "Okinawan farm and fishing families", "Korean labourers, many of them coerced" ], "sources": [ "micronesia", "micsem_japan" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Babeldaob, Palau", "lon": 134.565, "lat": 7.53 }, { "name": "Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands", "lon": 145.75, "lat": 15.19 }, { "name": "Weno, Chuuk", "lon": 151.85, "lat": 7.45 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Japan & Okinawa", "lon": 137, "lat": 35 } ], "viewPadding": 2, "markerScale": 0.46, "originDisplay": "edge", "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "andaman-islands", "name": "Andaman Islands", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1858–present", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 34, "viewPadding": 8, "markerScale": 0.4, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1858, "end": 2026, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1858–1947: British penal colonization; 1947–2026: Post-independence refugee and development settlement.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1858, "end": 1947, "label": "British penal colonization", "note": "British penal colonization. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1947, "end": 2026, "label": "Post-independence refugee and development settlement", "note": "Post-independence refugee and development settlement. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Britain founded the Port Blair penal colony in 1858 to hold rebels of 1857, and the settlement it seeded destroyed the islanders. The Great Andamanese collapsed from several thousand at contact to 625 by 1901 and an all-time low of 19 in 1961, wrecked by measles, influenza and syphilis. After 1947 India settled Partition refugees and mainland labourers, and some 400,000 people now vastly outnumber a few hundred Great Andamanese, Onge, Jarawa and Sentinelese, whose forests a trunk road still cuts through.", "displaced": [ "Great Andamanese", "Onge", "Jarawa", "Sentinelese" ], "settlers": [ "Convicts and their descendants", "Partition-era Bengali refugees", "mainland labourers and migrants" ], "sources": [ "andaman", "andaman_survival" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Port Blair penal colony and settlement hub", "lon": 92.74, "lat": 11.67 }, { "name": "Strait Island (Great Andamanese)", "lon": 92.95, "lat": 12.2 }, { "name": "Jarawa reserve, South and Middle Andaman", "lon": 92.65, "lat": 12.05 }, { "name": "Little Andaman (Onge)", "lon": 92.57, "lat": 10.72 }, { "name": "North Sentinel Island", "lon": 92.23, "lat": 11.56 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Mainland India", "lon": 78, "lat": 22 } ], "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 5, "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: British penal colonization and post-independence Indian refugee and development settlement were distinct regimes affecting different islands and Indigenous peoples.", "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "mindanao", "name": "Mindanao", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "strong", "dates": "20th century–present", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1900, "end": 2026, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1900–1935: U.S. colonial land policy; 1935–1946: Commonwealth settlement agencies; 1946–1972: Postwar sponsored migration; 1972–2026: Plantation, logging, and conflict frontiers.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1900, "end": 1935, "label": "U.S. colonial land policy", "note": "U.S. colonial land policy. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1935, "end": 1946, "label": "Commonwealth settlement agencies", "note": "Commonwealth settlement agencies. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1946, "end": 1972, "label": "Postwar sponsored migration", "note": "Postwar sponsored migration. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 }, { "start": 1972, "end": 2026, "label": "Plantation, logging, and conflict frontiers", "note": "Plantation, logging, and conflict frontiers. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 4 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "State-backed settlement turned a Muslim island into a Christian-majority one. American authorities opened agricultural colonies in Cotabato from 1913. The Commonwealth's National Land Settlement Administration followed in 1939, and Magsaysay's EDCOR resettled ex-rebels and soldiers from Luzon in the 1950s. Around 1.2 million migrants entered in 1948–60 alone. The Moro peoples fell from roughly three-quarters of Mindanao's population at 1900 to about a quarter by 1948, and the Lumad to a small minority, their customary land redefined as public.", "displaced": [ "Moro peoples (Maguindanao, Maranao, Tausūg, Iranun)", "Lumad peoples (Manobo, T'boli, B'laan, Subanen)" ], "settlers": [ "Christian Filipino homesteaders from Luzon and the Visayas" ], "sources": [ "mindanao", "mindanao_tigno" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Mindanao", "lon": 124.5, "lat": 7.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Luzon", "lon": 121, "lat": 15 }, { "name": "Negros and the central Visayas", "lon": 123.18, "lat": 10.65 } ], "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: US colonial land policy, Commonwealth settlement agencies, postwar migration, logging and plantation concessions, and conflict displacement are distinct processes with different affected Moro and Lumad communities.", "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "vietnam-central-highlands", "name": "Vietnam's Central Highlands", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1954–present", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1954, "end": 2026, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1954–1975: South Vietnamese resettlement and war; 1975–1986: New Economic Zones and state farms; 1986–2026: Coffee frontier and continuing land seizure.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1954, "end": 1975, "label": "South Vietnamese resettlement and war", "note": "South Vietnamese resettlement and war. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1975, "end": 1986, "label": "New Economic Zones and state farms", "note": "New Economic Zones and state farms. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1986, "end": 2026, "label": "Coffee frontier and continuing land seizure", "note": "Coffee frontier and continuing land seizure. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "After the 1954 partition, Diem's government began resettling lowland Kinh, including northern Catholic refugees, in the highlands. By 1975 perhaps a million had moved in, and after reunification New Economic Zone and spontaneous migration brought up to three million more, while the 1990s coffee boom drove smallholders onto Indigenous land. The Degar or Montagnard peoples (Ê Đê, Jarai, Bahnar and others) are now perhaps a third of the region, and their 2001 land protests met a hard crackdown.", "displaced": [ "Degar / Montagnard peoples such as Ê Đê (Rhade), Jarai, Bahnar, Kơho and Mnông" ], "settlers": [ "Kinh (ethnic Vietnamese) migrants from the Red River Delta and lowlands" ], "sources": [ "vietnam", "vietnam_hrw" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Central Highlands", "lon": 108.2, "lat": 13.6 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Red River Delta", "lon": 106, "lat": 20.8 }, { "name": "Lowland Vietnam", "lon": 106.5, "lat": 16 } ], "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: South Vietnamese resettlement, wartime displacement, post-1975 New Economic Zones, coffee expansion, and state-farm land seizure are not one uninterrupted event.", "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "chittagong-hill-tracts", "name": "Chittagong Hill Tracts", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "strong", "dates": "1979–present", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1979, "end": 2026 } ], "story": "Bangladesh moved its lowlanders uphill. A covert state program from 1979 to 1984 shifted more than 400,000 Bengali settlers into the Chittagong Hill Tracts with land grants and rations, and the Bengali share of the population jumped from 12% in 1974 to nearly half by 1991. The 1962 Kaptai Dam had already drowned 40% of the best farmland and displaced 100,000 people, mostly Chakma. Counter-insurgency against the Jumma peoples brought massacres through the 1980s and 90s, and the 1997 peace accord's land promises remain largely unmet.", "displaced": [ "Jumma peoples such as Chakma, Marma, Tripura, Mru and Bawm" ], "settlers": [ "Bengali settlers from the plains districts of Bangladesh" ], "sources": [ "cht", "cht_commission" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Chittagong Hill Tracts", "lon": 92.2, "lat": 22.6 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Bengali lowlands", "lon": 90.4, "lat": 23.8 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "sri-lanka-irrigation", "name": "Sri Lankan irrigation settlements", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1930s–present", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1930, "end": 2026, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1930–1948: Early dry-zone colonization schemes; 1949–1970: Gal Oya and post-independence settlement; 1970–1990: Mahaweli development; 1984–2026: Weli Oya and contested frontier settlement.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1930, "end": 1948, "label": "Early dry-zone colonization schemes", "note": "Early dry-zone colonization schemes. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1949, "end": 1970, "label": "Gal Oya and post-independence settlement", "note": "Gal Oya and post-independence settlement. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1970, "end": 1990, "label": "Mahaweli development", "note": "Mahaweli development. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 }, { "start": 1984, "end": 2026, "label": "Weli Oya and contested frontier settlement", "note": "Weli Oya and contested frontier settlement. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 4 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Sri Lanka colonized its own dry zone. State-aided schemes from the 1935 Land Development Ordinance moved Sinhalese peasants into districts Tamils and Muslims claimed, redrawing the electoral map, and Patrick Peebles reads the whole program as a driver of the ethnic conflict. The sharpest case is Weli Oya, carved out of Tamil-majority Manal Aru in 1984 and militarized. Tamil residents got 48-hour eviction notices, and by 2012 the area's 18 villages were 99.7% Sinhalese. The war it fed brought massacres on both sides.", "contested": "Scale, intent and the settler-colonial label are strongly disputed. The Weli Oya scheme is the clearest instance, the wider dry-zone program more debated. Worldwide audit correction: Gal Oya, Mahaweli, Weli Oya, and other schemes had different dates, sponsors, ethnic politics, and displacement footprints; one national label is not an event-level account.", "displaced": [ "Sri Lankan Tamils of the northern/eastern dry zone", "Muslims of contested eastern districts" ], "settlers": [ "Sinhalese peasant colonists from the south and centre, state-sponsored" ], "sources": [ "sri_lanka", "sri_lanka_peebles" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Weli Oya / Manal Aru", "lon": 80.63, "lat": 8.93 }, { "name": "Dry-zone schemes", "lon": 81, "lat": 8.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Southern & central Sri Lanka", "lon": 80.5, "lat": 7.1 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "west-papua", "name": "West Papua", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1963–present", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1963, "end": 2026, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1963–1969: Occupation and political integration; 1969–1998: Formal transmigration and resource concessions; 1998–2026: Migration, extraction, and conflict displacement.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1963, "end": 1969, "label": "Occupation and political integration", "note": "Occupation and political integration. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1969, "end": 1998, "label": "Formal transmigration and resource concessions", "note": "Formal transmigration and resource concessions. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1998, "end": 2026, "label": "Migration, extraction, and conflict displacement", "note": "Migration, extraction, and conflict displacement. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Indonesia took West Papua's administration in 1963 and ratified it through the 1969 “Act of Free Choice,” a vote of 1,022 hand-picked electors. Non-Papuans were 4% of the population in 1971. By 2010, after decades of transmigration and spontaneous migration from Java and Sulawesi, settlers were a slight majority overall, and Jim Elmslie projected the Indigenous share falling below 30%. New transmigration plans floated in 2024 drew fresh Papuan protest. The highlands remain overwhelmingly Papuan. The coasts and towns do not.", "contested": "The settler-colonial framing is advanced by scholars such as Jim Elmslie and by Papuan advocates, while Indonesia rejects it, treating Papua as an integral province. Worldwide audit correction: Military occupation, formal transmigration, spontaneous migration, resource concessions, urban land seizure, and conflict displacement require separate dates and evidentiary claims.", "displaced": [ "Papuans (Melanesian peoples, incl. the Moi of Sorong)" ], "settlers": [ "Javanese and Madurese transmigrants", "Bugis, Makassarese and Butonese migrants" ], "sources": [ "west_papua", "west_papua_elmslie" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Bird's Head / Sorong", "lon": 131.3, "lat": -1 }, { "name": "Papuan north coast", "lon": 140, "lat": -2.8 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Java", "lon": 110, "lat": -7.4 }, { "name": "Sulawesi", "lon": 120.5, "lat": -2 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "namibia", "name": "Namibia", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "dates": "1884–1990", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1884, "end": 1990, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1884–1915: German South West Africa; 1915–1990: South African rule.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1884, "end": 1915, "label": "German South West Africa", "note": "German South West Africa, and the 1904–08 Herero and Nama genocide.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1915, "end": 1990, "label": "South African rule", "note": "South African rule, apartheid and the homeland system.", "sequenceStep": 2 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Germany declared a protectorate in 1884 and built its only true settler colony on the land it seized. When the Herero rose in 1904 and the Nama followed, General von Trotha issued an extermination order. By 1908 roughly 65,000 Herero, four in five, and at least 10,000 Nama were dead by shooting, thirst in the Omaheke, and the camps at Shark Island. South Africa took over in 1915 and extended apartheid until independence in 1990. Germany acknowledged the genocide only in 2021.", "displaced": [ "Herero (Ovaherero)", "Nama", "Damara", "San" ], "settlers": [ "German settlers and Schutztruppe veterans", "Afrikaner and other white South Africans" ], "sources": [ "gewald", "namibia_ap" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Central & southern Namibia", "lon": 17.1, "lat": -22.1 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "German Empire", "lon": 10.4, "lat": 51.1 }, { "name": "South Africa", "lon": 24.7, "lat": -29 } ], "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 5, "reachFitCap": 520, "frameOrigins": [ { "name": "South Africa", "lon": 24.7, "lat": -29 } ], "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: German conquest, the Herero and Nama genocide, settler land allocation, and South African mandate/apartheid rule were distinct regimes; ending only at independence hides the changing machinery.", "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "southern-rhodesia", "name": "Southern Rhodesia / Zimbabwe", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "dates": "1890–1980", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1890, "end": 1980 } ], "story": "Cecil Rhodes's British South Africa Company sent a Pioneer Column into Mashonaland in 1890, and war finished the conquest, the Ndebele kingdom in 1893 and the Shona and Ndebele risings of 1896–97. The 1930 Land Apportionment Act handed roughly half the colony to about 48,000 whites, under 5% of the people. Ian Smith declared independence in 1965 to preserve minority rule, and the settler population peaked near 300,000 before the liberation war ended the settler state at Zimbabwe's independence in 1980.", "displaced": [ "Shona (Zezuru, Karanga, Manyika)", "Ndebele", "Tonga" ], "settlers": [ "British settlers", "white South Africans", "other European migrants" ], "sources": [ "palmer_rhodesia", "mlambo" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Zimbabwean plateau", "lon": 29.4, "lat": -18.9 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Britain", "lon": -2.2, "lat": 54.4 }, { "name": "South Africa", "lon": 24.7, "lat": -29 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "kenya-highlands", "name": "Kenya Highlands", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "dates": "1902–1963", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1902, "end": 1963 } ], "story": "Britain reserved Kenya's best land for whites and called it the White Highlands. Crown Lands ordinances from 1902 let settlers take 999-year leases, and the 1939 Highlands Order fenced roughly 7.5 million acres off from Africans, policed by a board that vetted every sale. The Maasai were moved south by “agreement” in 1904 and 1911. Over 200,000 Kikuyu lived as squatter-labourers on settler farms, and their eviction and land hunger fed the Mau Mau uprising and the emergency of 1952–60.", "displaced": [ "Kikuyu (Gĩkũyũ)", "Maasai", "Nandi and other Kalenjin", "Kamba" ], "settlers": [ "British settler farmers", "South African and other European migrants" ], "sources": [ "kanogo", "coldham" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Kenya Highlands", "lon": 36.4, "lat": 0.1 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Britain", "lon": -2.2, "lat": 54.4 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "liberia", "name": "Liberia", "region": "Africa", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1822–1980", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1822, "end": 1980 } ], "story": "A settler colony of freed slaves. The American Colonization Society planted its first settlers at Cape Mesurado in 1822, and by 1867 had sent more than 13,000 African American emigrants. The colony declared itself a republic in 1847 with a constitution written by and for the settler class. The Americo-Liberians, a few percent of the population, ruled the Indigenous majority through the True Whig Party from 1878 until Samuel Doe's 1980 coup ended their monopoly, a distinctive Black, non-metropolitan case of the same structure.", "displaced": [ "Kpelle", "Bassa", "Grebo", "Kru", "Vai", "Gola and other Indigenous Liberian peoples" ], "settlers": [ "Free-born and freed African Americans (Americo-Liberians)", "recaptured Africans ('Congoes')" ], "sources": [ "liberia", "loc_acs" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Liberian coast & interior", "lon": -10.7, "lat": 6.4 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "United States", "lon": -77, "lat": 38.7 } ], "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 6, "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "argentina-frontiers", "name": "Argentina: Pampas & Patagonia", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "core", "dates": "1867–1914", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1867, "end": 1914 } ], "story": "Argentina cleared its south by campaign. Law 215 of 1867 set the conquest of the Indigenous frontier as state policy, and from 1878 General Roca's Conquest of the Desert drove it home with breech-loading rifles, killing and capturing thousands of Mapuche, Ranquel and Tehuelche and interning prisoners on Martín García island. The last cacique, Sayhueque, surrendered in 1885. The conquered land, some 8.5 million hectares from one campaign's bonds, went to a few hundred owners and to the European immigrants pouring through Buenos Aires.", "displaced": [ "Mapuche", "Ranquel (Rankülche)", "Tehuelche (Aónikenk)", "Günün a küna" ], "settlers": [ "Argentine criollo settlers and military colonists", "Italian, Spanish and other European immigrants" ], "note": "Buenos Aires stands for the state and the migration gateway. The Chaco frontier followed a distinct chronology not folded in here. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; high confidence.", "sources": [ "argentina", "argentina_ryan", "argentina_greenwald" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Pampas", "lon": -62, "lat": -36 }, { "name": "Patagonia", "lon": -69, "lat": -45 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Buenos Aires (state & immigration gateway)", "lon": -58.4, "lat": -34.6 } ], "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "chile-araucania", "name": "Chile: Araucanía", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "core", "dates": "1861–1883+", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1861, "end": 1910 } ], "story": "For two centuries Spain recognized Mapuche autonomy south of the Biobío, and Chile ended it by force. Colonel Saavedra's occupation of Araucanía, planned from 1861, advanced with forts and towns. The last general Mapuche uprising broke in 1881, and the re-founding of Villarrica in 1883 closed the conquest. The state then penned Mapuche communities into some 3,000 reducciones, about 500,000 hectares of their former country, and handed the rest to Chilean and European colonists, Germans and Swiss and Boers among them.", "displaced": [ "Mapuche of Gülumapu (Nagche, Wenteche and Lafkenche)" ], "settlers": [ "Chilean settlers from central Chile", "German, Swiss, Italian and Boer colonists" ], "sources": [ "chile", "latin_america" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Araucanía / Gülumapu", "lon": -72.5, "lat": -38.7 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Central Chile & immigration ports", "lon": -70.7, "lat": -33.5 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "uruguay", "name": "Uruguay", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1831–20th century", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1831, "end": 1914, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1831–1832: Salsipuedes campaign; 1831–1850: Captivity, removals, and dispersal; 1850–1914: Land consolidation and official Indigenous erasure.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1831, "end": 1832, "label": "Salsipuedes campaign", "note": "Salsipuedes campaign. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1831, "end": 1850, "label": "Captivity, removals, and dispersal", "note": "Captivity, removals, and dispersal. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1850, "end": 1914, "label": "Land consolidation and official Indigenous erasure", "note": "Land consolidation and official Indigenous erasure. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Uruguay built its European self-image on a massacre. On 11 April 1831, President Fructuoso Rivera's forces ambushed the Charrúa at Salsipuedes, killing about 40 and taking 300 prisoner, and four captives were shipped to Paris in 1833 and exhibited. Mass Spanish and Italian immigration then filled the country and let the state call itself a país sin indios, a land without Indians. It was never true, and Charrúa descendants organized from 1989 and now contest the story of their own extinction.", "note": "A qualified case. The displaced Charrúa were a small, mobile population, and Uruguay's settler majority came mostly from later European immigration rather than from replacing a large Indigenous society. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "displaced": [ "Charrúa", "Minuán", "Guaraní" ], "settlers": [ "Spanish and Italian immigrants", "the Uruguayan criollo state" ], "sources": [ "verdesio_charrua", "latin_america" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Uruguay", "lon": -56, "lat": -32.8 } ], "origins": [], "routeAnchors": [ { "label": "Montevideo", "lon": -56.16, "lat": -34.9, "use": "actor_node", "stream": "uruguayan_state_campaign" } ], "placeGloss": "The 1831 forced movement ran from the Salsipuedes capture zone toward Montevideo and other destinations. Because the exact capture-site coordinate remains unverified, the map omits a literal arrow rather than drawing Europe or misusing Montevideo as the captives' origin. Spain and Italy belong only to the later immigration stage preserved in the dated sequence.", "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: The Salsipuedes campaign and subsequent removal, captivity, land privatization, and transborder Indigenous survival need their own bounded events; '1831–20th century' is not a usable chronology.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "mennonite-chaco", "name": "Mennonite Chaco, Paraguay", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1927–present", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1927, "end": 2026 } ], "story": "A settler colony with no metropole behind it. Paraguay's 1921 law promised Mennonites exemption from military service, oaths and state schooling, and in 1927 the first 1,743 pioneers from Canada founded Menno Colony in the Chaco, and refugees from the Soviet Union followed in 1930 and 1947. The colonies occupy Enlhet, Nivaclé and Ayoreo land, and their cooperatives now run the central Chaco's cattle-and-dairy economy while some Ayoreo-Totobiegosode still live in voluntary isolation in the shrinking forest.", "displaced": [ "Enlhet Norte & Enxet Sur", "Nivaclé", "Ayoreo (incl. Totobiegosode)", "Guaraní Ñandeva" ], "settlers": [ "Mennonites from Canada (1927)", "Mennonites from the Soviet Union (1930, 1947)" ], "sources": [ "paraguay", "latin_america" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Paraguayan Chaco", "lon": -60.5, "lat": -22.7 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Canada", "lon": -97.1, "lat": 49.9 }, { "name": "Former Soviet Union", "lon": 32, "lat": 49 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "bolivian-lowlands", "name": "Bolivian eastern lowlands", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1950s–present", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1952, "end": 2026, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1952–1985: Road building and state colonization; 1954–2026: Mennonite settlement frontiers; 1985–2026: Cattle, soy, and agroindustrial expansion.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1952, "end": 1985, "label": "Road building and state colonization", "note": "Road building and state colonization. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1954, "end": 2026, "label": "Mennonite settlement frontiers", "note": "Mennonite settlement frontiers. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1985, "end": 2026, "label": "Cattle, soy, and agroindustrial expansion", "note": "Cattle, soy, and agroindustrial expansion. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Bolivia turned east after its 1952 revolution. The US-backed Plan Bohan had drawn the blueprint, and the 1953 agrarian reform and later governments opened colonization corridors in Santa Cruz and the Chapare, moving Andean Quechua and Aymara settlers, plus state-recruited Mennonite and Okinawan colonies, into the lowlands. Ben Nobbs-Thiessen traces how this remade Santa Cruz into an agro-industrial heartland, and the two colonization zones account for most of Bolivia's deforestation, at the expense of Guaraní, Ayoreo and Chiquitano land.", "displaced": [ "Guaraní", "Ayoreo", "Chiquitano (Monkoxi)", "Guarayo", "Yuracaré", "Mojeño" ], "settlers": [ "Andean Quechua and Aymara colonists", "Mennonite and Okinawan colonies", "agribusiness migrants" ], "sources": [ "nobbs_thiessen", "bolivia" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Eastern lowlands", "lon": -63.1, "lat": -17.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Andean highlands", "lon": -68.1, "lat": -16.5 }, { "name": "Cochabamba valleys", "lon": -66.2, "lat": -17.4 } ], "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: Santa Cruz colonization, Mennonite settlement, cattle and soy frontiers, road building, and distinct Indigenous territorial conflicts cannot be represented by one national lowlands case.", "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "new-caledonia", "name": "New Caledonia", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "core", "dates": "1853–present", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 55, "viewPadding": 20, "markerScale": 0.45, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1853, "end": 2026 } ], "story": "France annexed New Caledonia in 1853 and settled it partly with convicts, some 22,000 transported to 1897, including 4,250 Communards. Land ceded to colonists rose from 1,000 hectares in 1860 to 230,000 by 1878, the year Grand Chief Ataï's revolt was crushed at the cost of a thousand Kanak lives. Governor Feillet then cut the Kanak reserves from 320,000 to 120,000 hectares. The Kanak, reduced from perhaps 60,000 to 27,000 by 1900, are now about 40% of the population, and three independence referendums have failed.", "displaced": [ "Kanak (Melanesian clans of Grande Terre and the Loyalty Islands)" ], "settlers": [ "French convicts and free settlers (Caldoches)", "Communard and Algerian deportees who stayed" ], "sources": [ "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "New Caledonia", "lon": 165.6, "lat": -21.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "France", "lon": 2.4, "lat": 48.9 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "hawaii", "name": "Hawaiʻi", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1820–present", "extent": "island", "periods": [ { "start": 1820, "end": 2026, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1820–1893: The missionary elite and the Māhele; 1893–1898: The overthrow; 1898–2026: U.S. annexation.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1820, "end": 1893, "label": "The missionary elite and the Māhele", "note": "Missionary families become a landholding elite, then the 1848 Māhele.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1893, "end": 1898, "label": "The overthrow", "note": "The overthrow of Queen Liliʻuokalani and the settler republic.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1898, "end": 2026, "label": "U.S. annexation", "note": "U.S. annexation and statehood.", "sequenceStep": 3 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "New England missionaries arrived in 1820 and their families became Hawaiʻi's landholding, sugar-growing elite. The 1848 Māhele broke up the traditional land system and let foreigners buy in, and many makaʻāinana ended up with nothing. In 1893 a committee of planters overthrew Queen Liliʻuokalani with U.S. Marines behind them. A petition of 21,000 Kānaka Maoli, more than half those counted, defeated the annexation treaty, so Congress annexed the islands by simple resolution in 1898. The Native population had fallen from perhaps 300,000 at contact to about 40,000.", "contested": "The status of later Asian plantation-labour migrants is itself debated. Fujikane and Okamura's “Asian settler colonialism” frames it, and the debate is part of the record. Worldwide audit correction: Missionary-commercial settlement, the Māhele land regime, overthrow and annexation, plantation labor importation, military land taking, and post-statehood development are distinct processes.", "displaced": [ "Kānaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians)" ], "settlers": [ "New England missionary families and descendants", "the Euro-American planter and military elite", "later U.S. settlers" ], "sources": [ "hawaii_schulz", "fujikane_hawaii", "nara_petition", "oha_population" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Oʻahu", "lon": -157.96, "lat": 21.47 }, { "name": "Hawaiʻi Island", "lon": -155.55, "lat": 19.65 }, { "name": "Maui", "lon": -156.33, "lat": 20.78 }, { "name": "Kauaʻi", "lon": -159.5, "lat": 22.07 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "New England missionary network", "lon": -71.1, "lat": 42.4 }, { "name": "U.S. settler-state core", "lon": -122.27, "lat": 37.66 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "guam", "name": "Guam / Guåhan", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1668–present", "extent": "island", "periods": [ { "start": 1668, "end": 2026, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1668–1898: Spanish reducción and depopulation; 1898–1941: U.S. naval rule and land acquisition; 1941–1944: Japanese wartime occupation; 1944–2026: Postwar U.S. military expansion.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1668, "end": 1898, "label": "Spanish reducción and depopulation", "note": "Spanish reducción and depopulation. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1898, "end": 1941, "label": "U.S. naval rule and land acquisition", "note": "U.S. naval rule and land acquisition. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1941, "end": 1944, "label": "Japanese wartime occupation", "note": "Japanese wartime occupation. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 }, { "start": 1944, "end": 2026, "label": "Postwar U.S. military expansion", "note": "Postwar U.S. military expansion. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 4 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Guam was colonized twice. Spain's conquest from 1668 imposed the reducción, and war and disease cut the CHamoru to about 3,500 by 1710. The United States took the island in 1898 and layered a second colonization over the first. After retaking Guam in 1944, the U.S. military seized 52,000 acres and at its peak held 63% of Guåhan, condemning most of it in 1948 at pre-war prices. Roughly 28% remains under military control, and the CHamoru are a minority on their own island, in an unincorporated territory whose residents still cannot vote for president.", "displaced": [ "CHamoru people of Guåhan" ], "settlers": [ "Spanish garrison and missionaries (1668–1898)", "U.S. military and federal personnel", "post-war civilian migrants" ], "sources": [ "guam", "guampedia_land" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Hagåtña, Guåhan", "lon": 144.75, "lat": 13.48 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Spain (via the Manila galleon)", "lon": -3.7, "lat": 40.4 }, { "name": "U.S. military-state core", "lon": -122.27, "lat": 37.66 } ], "zoomFloor": 150, "markerScale": 0.38, "originDisplay": "edge", "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: Spanish reduccion and depopulation, US naval rule and land acquisition, Japanese wartime occupation, and postwar military expansion are separate displacement regimes.", "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "rapa-nui", "name": "Rapa Nui", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1888–present", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 48, "viewPadding": 18, "markerScale": 0.42, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1888, "end": 2026 } ], "story": "Rapa Nui nearly disappeared before Chile ever raised its flag. Peruvian slavers seized over 1,400 people in 1862–63, a third to a half of the island, and the smallpox the few survivors carried home killed roughly a thousand more, dropping the population to about 100. Chile annexed the island in 1888, then leased it to a Scottish-Chilean sheep company that penned the Rapanui behind a wall at Hanga Roa until the 1960s. Only the 1966 Ley Pascua gave them citizenship and the run of their own island.", "displaced": [ "Rapanui" ], "settlers": [ "European ranchers (Williamson-Balfour Company)", "the Chilean state, navy and mainland migrants" ], "note": "The 1862–63 slave raids and first ranching predate the 1888 annexation that opens this record. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "rapa_nui", "ebsco_rapanui" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Rapa Nui", "lon": -109.35, "lat": -27.1 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Mainland Chile", "lon": -70.7, "lat": -33.5 } ], "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "vanuatu", "name": "Vanuatu / New Hebrides", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1860s–1980", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 75, "viewPadding": 25, "markerScale": 0.5, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1860, "end": 1980 } ], "story": "The New Hebrides were worked over twice: labour taken out, planters moved in. Between 1863 and 1904, blackbirding carried more than 60,000 South Sea Islanders to Queensland's plantations, many of them ni-Vanuatu. French and British planters then alienated so much land that by the mid-twentieth century over a third of the islands was foreign-owned, though the ni-Vanuatu stayed the majority. At independence in 1980, the new constitution reversed a century of it in one line: all land belongs to the indigenous custom owners.", "displaced": [ "ni-Vanuatu (Indigenous Melanesian peoples)" ], "settlers": [ "French planters and land companies", "British and Australian planters", "condominium officials" ], "sources": [ "vanuatu", "britannica_vanuatu", "nma_blackbirding" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Vanuatu", "lon": 167.5, "lat": -16.2 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "France", "lon": 2.4, "lat": 48.9 }, { "name": "Britain", "lon": -2.2, "lat": 54.4 }, { "name": "Australia", "lon": 151.2, "lat": -33.9 } ], "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 5, "frameOrigins": [ { "name": "Australia", "lon": 151.2, "lat": -33.9 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "banaba-ocean-island", "name": "Banaba (Ocean Island)", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "1900–1979", "extent": "island", "periods": [ { "start": 1900, "end": 1979 } ], "story": "An island eaten for fertilizer. Britain annexed Banaba in 1900, the year phosphate was found, and the British Phosphate Commissioners, owned by Britain, Australia and New Zealand, strip-mined about 90% of its surface, shipping more than 20 million tonnes to Antipodean farms. In December 1945 the surviving Banabans were moved 2,000 km to Rabi Island in Fiji, bought with money from their own phosphate trust. Katerina Teaiwa calls it the literal consumption of a homeland, and the deposits ran out in 1979, as Kiribati became independent.", "contested": "Banaba was not a conventional replacement colony. It is included because imperial annexation, phosphate extraction that destroyed most habitable land, and the coerced relocation of Banabans to Rabi formed one connected process of land destruction and displacement.", "displaced": [ "Banabans (te aomata ni Banaba), forcibly resettled to Rabi, Fiji in 1945" ], "settlers": [ "Imported mine labourers (Chinese and Pacific Islander) under the phosphate regime" ], "sources": [ "teaiwa_banaba", "edwards_banaba" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Banaba (Ocean Island)", "lon": 169.54, "lat": -0.86 }, { "name": "Rabi Island, Fiji (relocation)", "lon": -179.98, "lat": -16.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "British Phosphate Commissioners (Melbourne)", "lon": 144.96, "lat": -37.81 }, { "name": "United Kingdom", "lon": -0.13, "lat": 51.51 } ], "mechanism": "Extractive colonialism and forced relocation", "affectedLabel": "Displaced", "actorLabel": "Colonial / company actors", "note": "Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "posen-west-prussia", "name": "Posen & West Prussia", "region": "Europe", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1886–1918", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1886, "end": 1918 } ], "story": "Imperial Germany tried to colonize its own Polish provinces and mostly failed. Bismarck's 1886 law created a Royal Settlement Commission with 100 million marks to buy Polish land for German farmers, and funding eventually topped 950 million marks. But of 438,000 hectares it acquired, only a quarter came from Polish owners, most bought from Germans, and Polish land banks out-competed it. By 1918 it had settled about 22,000 German families, far short of its aim. Its most durable product was the 1908 law letting the state expropriate Polish estates outright.", "displaced": [ "Poles (Polacy)" ], "settlers": [ "German peasant colonist families recruited by the Settlement Commission" ], "sources": [ "handbook", "blanke_poland" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Posen / Poznań & West Prussia", "lon": 17, "lat": 52.4 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "German imperial core", "lon": 10.5, "lat": 51.2 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "generalplan-ost", "name": "Generalplan Ost", "region": "Europe", "fit": "attempted", "dates": "1941–1945", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1941, "end": 1945 } ], "story": "The most murderous settlement plan ever drafted, and only partly carried out. Under Himmler, the agronomist Konrad Meyer's office designed Generalplan Ost to expel some 31 million people, far more in later versions, beyond the Urals and settle Germans in their place across Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltics. Implementation reached the Zamość region, where from November 1942 about 100,000 Poles, including 30,000 children, were driven from 297 villages to make room for ethnic-German settlers before the war turned.", "displaced": [ "Poles", "Ukrainians", "Belarusians", "Russians", "Balts", "Jews (murdered in the Holocaust the plan presupposed)" ], "settlers": [ "Reich Germans (planned)", "ethnic-German Volksdeutsche resettlers (at Zamość)" ], "note": "A genocidal settler-colonial plan with partial implementation, not a completed settler society. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; high confidence.", "sources": [ "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Occupied Poland", "lon": 19, "lat": 52 }, { "name": "Occupied Ukraine", "lon": 31.2, "lat": 49 }, { "name": "Occupied Belarus", "lon": 28, "lat": 53.7 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Nazi Germany", "lon": 10.5, "lat": 51.2 } ], "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: The attempted plan must be separated from the actually implemented expulsions, deportations, Germanization, mass murder, and settlement experiments under Nazi occupation.", "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "french-algeria", "name": "French Algeria", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "core", "dates": "1830–1962", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1830, "end": 1962 } ], "story": "France invaded in 1830 and stayed 132 years, seizing land and political power while remaining a tenth of the population. The conquest itself was catastrophic, and Algeria's Muslim population fell by perhaps a third between 1830 and the 1870s through war, dispossession and famine. Europeans, the pieds-noirs, numbered about 984,000 by 1954, holding some 2.7 million hectares of the best farmland. When independence came in 1962, nearly the whole settler community left, around 650,000 in that year alone.", "displaced": [ "Muslim Algerians (Arab and Amazigh communities)" ], "settlers": [ "European settlers (pieds-noirs) of French, Spanish, Italian and Maltese origin" ], "sources": [ "britannica_algeria", "algeria_moumen", "mena" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Northern Algeria", "lon": 2.6, "lat": 35.2 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "France", "lon": 2.4, "lat": 48.9 }, { "name": "Spain", "lon": -3.7, "lat": 40.4 }, { "name": "Italy", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 42 }, { "name": "Malta", "lon": 14.4, "lat": 35.9 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; high confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "italian-libya", "name": "Italian Libya", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1911–1943", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1911, "end": 1943, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1911–1922: Italian conquest; 1923–1932: Cyrenaican camps and clearance; 1932–1943: Fascist mass settlement.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1911, "end": 1922, "label": "Italian conquest", "note": "Italian conquest. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1923, "end": 1932, "label": "Cyrenaican camps and clearance", "note": "Cyrenaican camps and clearance. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1932, "end": 1943, "label": "Fascist mass settlement", "note": "Fascist mass settlement. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Italy's settlement of Libya came after an atrocity. To break Cyrenaican resistance from 1929 to 1934, Badoglio and Graziani deported the population to sixteen concentration camps. Ali Abdullatif Ahmida documents more than 60,000 deaths, and Omar al-Mukhtar was hanged before a crowd in 1931. Only then did the Fascist “demographic colonization” begin, the Ventimila, 20,000 settlers shipped in one 1938 convoy into purpose-built villages, some 110,000 Italians by 1940. The Allied conquest of 1943 ended it.", "note": "A qualified case. The demographic colonization was large but brief, cut off by the 1943 Allied conquest before it settled into a permanent society. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "displaced": [ "Cyrenaican Arab-Bedouin communities" ], "settlers": [ "Italian colonists (the 1938 “Ventimila” and after)" ], "sources": [ "ahmida_libya", "libya", "mena" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Tripolitania", "lon": 13, "lat": 32.5 }, { "name": "Cyrenaica", "lon": 21, "lat": 32 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Italy", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 42.2 } ], "contested": "Worldwide audit correction: Initial conquest, Cyrenaican camp deportations and mass death, Fascist demographic colonization, and wartime collapse should not be collapsed into one settlement phase.", "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "western-sahara", "name": "Western Sahara", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1975–present", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1975, "end": 2026, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1975–1991: Invasion, war, and Sahrawi flight; 1976–2026: Subsidized settlement and administrative incorporation; 1980–1991: Wall and mine displacement.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1975, "end": 1991, "label": "Invasion, war, and Sahrawi flight", "note": "Invasion, war, and Sahrawi flight. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1976, "end": 2026, "label": "Subsidized settlement and administrative incorporation", "note": "Subsidized settlement and administrative incorporation. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1980, "end": 1991, "label": "Wall and mine displacement", "note": "Wall and mine displacement. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "When Spain withdrew in 1975, Morocco moved in. King Hassan II's Green March sent some 350,000 civilians across the border, and the territory was partitioned. Within months tens of thousands of Sahrawis had fled to refugee camps near Tindouf in Algeria, whose population is disputed, with UNHCR planning figures near 90,000 and Polisario counts far higher. Morocco later presented the UN with lists of 120,000 settlers it had moved in since 1975. The UN still lists Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory with no administering power, and M. Padrón Hernández argues it should be read as a settler colony.", "contested": "There is no reliable census. The claim that settlers now outnumber Sahrawis in the territory is standard but not precisely quantifiable. Worldwide audit correction: The 1975 invasion and refugee flight, wartime wall and mine displacement, subsidized Moroccan settlement, and continuing resource and housing policy require separate representation.", "displaced": [ "Sahrawis" ], "settlers": [ "Moroccan settlers" ], "note": "The markers fall west of the berm, in the Moroccan-controlled zone. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "western_sahara", "mrg_sahrawis", "un_western_sahara" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Laayoune", "lon": -13.2, "lat": 27.15 }, { "name": "Dakhla", "lon": -15.91, "lat": 23.66 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Morocco", "lon": -6, "lat": 32 } ], "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "northern-cyprus", "name": "Northern Cyprus", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1974–present", "extent": "island", "periods": [ { "start": 1975, "end": 2026 } ], "story": "Turkey's 1974 invasion split the island and set two populations moving. About 160,000 to 180,000 Greek Cypriots fled south and 45,000 to 60,000 Turkish Cypriots north. Then came organized settlement. A 1975 labour protocol aimed to bring some 30,000 mainland Turks to farm the emptied north, and heavy settlement continued to 1977. The eventual settler total is fiercely disputed. The 2011 census counted 295,000 residents of every kind, Turkish Cypriots and the locally born children of settlers among them, and estimates of actual mainland settlers range widely, which is why the numbers, intent and the label all remain contested.", "contested": "Numbers, intent and the settler-colonial classification are all strongly disputed. Scholars reject the highest settler estimates as speculative.", "displaced": [ "Greek Cypriots (displaced south)", "Turkish Cypriots (moved north)" ], "settlers": [ "Mainland Turkish settlers" ], "sources": [ "northern_cyprus", "moudouros_cyprus" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Northern Cyprus", "lon": 33.3, "lat": 35.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Turkey", "lon": 35, "lat": 39 } ], "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 4, "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "iraqi-kurdistan-kirkuk", "name": "Iraqi Kurdistan & Kirkuk", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1960s–2003", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1963, "end": 2003 } ], "story": "Baʼathist Iraq re-engineered its north by Arabization. From the mid-1970s some 250,000 Kurds and other non-Arabs were expelled from a wide belt of the north, their land and homes handed to Arab families moved up from the centre and south. The 1988 Anfal campaign under Ali Hassan al-Majid reached genocidal scale, and Human Rights Watch documents the disappearance of about 100,000 Kurds, with the chemical attack on Halabja killing roughly 5,000 in a day. The expulsions from Kirkuk continued until the regime fell in 2003.", "displaced": [ "Kurds", "Turkmen", "Assyrians" ], "settlers": [ "Arab families relocated from central and southern Iraq with state land and housing" ], "sources": [ "iraq", "hrw_iraq" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Kirkuk", "lon": 44.4, "lat": 35.5 }, { "name": "Northern Arabization zones", "lon": 43.5, "lat": 36.2 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Central & southern Iraq", "lon": 44.4, "lat": 33 } ], "note": "Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "syrian-arab-belt", "name": "Syrian Arab Belt", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1973–1976", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1973, "end": 1976 } ], "story": "Syria planned an Arab cordon along its Kurdish north. In 1962 a special census had stripped some 120,000 Jazira Kurds of citizenship, and the 1965 “Arab Belt” scheme then envisaged an Arabized strip 15 km deep and 280 km long on the Turkish border. In 1975 the state settled about 4,000 Arab families, farmers displaced by the Tabqa Dam, in 41 model villages built on land taken from Kurds, many of them the very people denaturalized in 1962. Assad suspended the plan in 1976 but never dismantled the villages.", "displaced": [ "Kurds of al-Hasakah / Jazira" ], "settlers": [ "~4,000 Arab families displaced by the Tabqa Dam, settled 1975 in 41 model farms" ], "note": "Planning began in the 1960s. Implementation ran 1973–75 and was suspended in 1976, leaving the villages in place. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "syria", "hrw_syria" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Ras al-Ayn–Qamishli belt", "lon": 40.1, "lat": 36.85 }, { "name": "Al-Malikiyah / Derik", "lon": 42.15, "lat": 37.18 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Tabqa reservoir / Raqqa region", "lon": 38.9, "lat": 35.95 } ], "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "jomon-yayoi", "name": "Yayoi settlement of Japan", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 900 BCE–700 CE", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": -900, "end": 700 } ], "story": "Japan's islands were held for millennia by the Jomon, hunter-gatherers with their own pottery and a deep genetic signature. From around 900 BCE, wet-rice farmers known as the Yayoi crossed from the southern Korean peninsula into Kyushu and spread northeast. Cooke and colleagues read the arrival as a massive influx that absorbed rather than erased the Jomon, followed by a further continental wave in the Kofun period. Jomon ancestry survives in modern Japanese at only about ten to fifteen percent, so the cumulative turnover was large even where each step was admixture.", "contested": "Whether to call this replacement or absorption is genuinely open. The single Yayoi transition looks closer to an even mix, but the added Kofun influx leaves the older ancestry a small minority, so the long-run outcome is demographic dominance by newcomers.", "displaced": [ "Jomon hunter-gatherers" ], "settlers": [ "Yayoi wet-rice farmers from the Korean peninsula", "later Kofun-era continental migrants" ], "note": "An expansion case read from ancient DNA, and a strong non-European case of farming-driven population turnover. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "jomon_cooke", "jomon_kanzawa" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Northern Kyushu", "lon": 130.36, "lat": 33.41 }, { "name": "Kinki / Yamato", "lon": 135.8, "lat": 34.7 }, { "name": "Kanto plain", "lon": 139.7, "lat": 35.7 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Southern Korea", "lon": 128.5, "lat": 35.2 } ], "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "anglo-saxon-britain", "name": "Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain", "region": "Europe", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 400–600 CE", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 400, "end": 600 } ], "story": "As Roman Britain fell apart, people from the North Sea coast, Jutland, Lower Saxony and Frisia, crossed into its eastern lowlands. The old question was whether a few warlords imposed a language on the Romano-British or whether whole communities moved in. Ancient DNA has tilted the answer toward migration. Gretzinger and colleagues find up to three quarters of the ancestry in eastern England came from the continental North Sea, though it varies sharply from place to place and mixes with the resident population. English begins here, in that settlement.", "contested": "The migration-versus-elite-takeover debate is old and still live. Recent genomes show substantial migration rather than a thin warrior elite, but heavy Romano-British continuity and later Continental gene flow mean this is admixture, not the clean replacement seen on the steppe.", "displaced": [ "Romano-British population of eastern and southern Britain" ], "settlers": [ "Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians from the North Sea coast" ], "note": "A proto-historic case, the same migration-or-elite-transfer question the atlas raises for the Athabaskan case. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "anglosaxon_gretzinger", "anglosaxon_schiffels" ], "targets": [ { "name": "East Anglia", "lon": 0.9, "lat": 52.4 }, { "name": "South-east England", "lon": 0.5, "lat": 51.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Schleswig-Holstein and the Saxon coast", "lon": 9.07, "lat": 54.02 } ], "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "numic-spread", "name": "Numic spread across the Great Basin", "region": "North America", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 1000–1700 CE", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1000, "end": 1700 } ], "story": "From a small homeland near the California-Nevada line, Numic-speaking people fanned out across the Great Basin over the last thousand years, the ancestors of the Shoshone, Paiute and Ute. As they spread they replaced the Fremont farmers and the other earlier peoples of the desert. It is the closest North American parallel to the Athabaskan migration, a documented ethnolinguistic turnover across a vast dry interior, ending only as horses and then settlers arrived from the east.", "contested": "The late Numic spread is well established from language. The mechanism is argued, competitive displacement of the Fremont in the Bettinger and Baumhoff model, versus Fremont collapse under drought followed by Numic in-filling of emptied land.", "displaced": [ "Fremont farmer-foragers and other pre-Numic Great Basin peoples" ], "settlers": [ "Numic (Uto-Aztecan) speakers, ancestral Shoshone, Paiute, Ute and Kawaiisu" ], "note": "An expansion case read from linguistics and archaeology, one Indigenous people spreading over another. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "numic_bettinger", "numic_madsen" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Central Nevada", "lon": -117, "lat": 39.3 }, { "name": "Northern Utah (Fremont)", "lon": -111.9, "lat": 40.7 }, { "name": "Wind River, Wyoming", "lon": -108.9, "lat": 43 }, { "name": "Ute Colorado plateau", "lon": -108.5, "lat": 38.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Owens Valley / Death Valley", "lon": -117.9, "lat": 36.6 } ], "casePhysicalLabels": [ { "name": "Rocky Mountains", "lon": -108.9, "lat": 43, "size": 1, "rotation": -18 } ], "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "kayenta-salado", "name": "Kayenta migration into the southern deserts", "region": "North America", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 1250–1450 CE", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1250, "end": 1450 } ], "story": "When the northern Southwest emptied in the late 1200s, Kayenta people from north-eastern Arizona moved south and planted immigrant enclaves among the Hohokam and the peoples of the San Pedro and Tonto basins. At sites like Reeve Ruin and Davis Ranch they kept a distinct identity, their own perforated plates, entry-box kivas and technology, the cleanest archaeological signature of settlers who move in and hold themselves apart. The blended Salado world that followed grew out of that meeting.", "contested": "The migrant enclaves are widely accepted. What is debated is whether the newcomers displaced the locals or fused with them, with many reading Salado as coalescence, migrants and hosts making a new shared identity.", "displaced": [ "Local Hohokam and San Pedro / Tonto Basin populations" ], "settlers": [ "Kayenta migrants from the northern Southwest (ancestral Puebloan)" ], "note": "An expansion case, a rare instance where intrusive settlers left a clear material fingerprint among a host population. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "kayenta_lyons", "kayenta_davis" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Lower San Pedro Valley", "lon": -110.5, "lat": 32.5 }, { "name": "Tonto Basin", "lon": -111.1, "lat": 33.8 }, { "name": "Point of Pines", "lon": -109.8, "lat": 33.4 }, { "name": "Upper Gila (Safford)", "lon": -109.7, "lat": 32.8 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Kayenta, north-east Arizona", "lon": -110.25, "lat": 36.72 } ], "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "pipil-nicarao", "name": "Nahua (Pipil and Nicarao) migration into Central America", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 900–1350 CE", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 900, "end": 1350 } ], "story": "Long before the Spanish, Nahua-speaking people from central Mexico moved more than a thousand kilometres south into Central America. The Pipil settled western El Salvador and Guatemala, the Nicarao the Pacific shore of Nicaragua, founding lasting Nahua-speaking towns like Cuzcatlan among the resident Maya, Lenca and Chorotega. It was a folk migration that put down roots, not just a conquering dynasty.", "contested": "The migration is well attested by language and by native histories, but its timing, the number of waves, and whether the newcomers displaced or layered over the Chorotega and Maya are debated, and much of the record was written down only after the conquest.", "displaced": [ "Maya, Lenca and Oto-Manguean (Chorotega) populations of Central America" ], "settlers": [ "Nahua-speaking migrants (Pipil and Nicarao) from central Mexico" ], "note": "An expansion case, one of the most overlooked long-distance migrations in the Americas. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "pipil_fowler", "pipil_fowler_ethno" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Western El Salvador (Cuzcatlan)", "lon": -89.65, "lat": 13.8 }, { "name": "Rivas / Lake Nicaragua", "lon": -85.8, "lat": 11.45 }, { "name": "Escuintla, Guatemala", "lon": -90.8, "lat": 14.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Central / southern Mexico", "lon": -97, "lat": 18.5 } ], "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "wari-tiwanaku-moquegua", "name": "Wari and Tiwanaku colonies in Moquegua", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 600–1050 CE", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 600, "end": 1050 } ], "story": "In the Moquegua valley of southern Peru, two Andean states planted colonies side by side. Tiwanaku, from the shores of Lake Titicaca, sent farmers six hundred kilometres downslope to build homeland temples and cemeteries at Omo and Chen Chen. Wari, from Ayacucho, seized the Cerro Baul mesa above them and cut a canal to green the desert, a rival enclave in sight of the first. Goldstein calls the Tiwanaku settlements a true diaspora, colonists who moved and stayed for centuries, not a garrison.", "contested": "That both are intrusive planned colonies is not in doubt, confirmed by homeland-style building, burials and skull-shaping. What is argued is how the two states related, wary coexistence or hostility, above one shared valley.", "displaced": [ "Resident Huaracane population of the middle Moquegua valley" ], "settlers": [ "Tiwanaku colonists from the Titicaca basin", "Wari colonists from Ayacucho" ], "note": "An expansion case, and the rare instance of two colonial powers settling one valley at once. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "moquegua_goldstein", "moquegua_williams" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Omo & Chen Chen (Tiwanaku)", "lon": -70.93, "lat": -17.18 }, { "name": "Cerro Baul (Wari)", "lon": -70.85, "lat": -17.1 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Tiwanaku (Lake Titicaca)", "lon": -68.67, "lat": -16.55 }, { "name": "Huari, Ayacucho", "lon": -74.22, "lat": -13.05 } ], "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "caribbean-saladoid", "name": "Saladoid settlement of the Caribbean", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 800 BCE–500 CE", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": -800, "end": 500 } ], "story": "The Caribbean was colonized long before Columbus. From around 800 BCE, ceramic-making, cassava-farming people known as the Saladoid, Arawak speakers from the lower Orinoco, canoed up the island chain from Trinidad to Puerto Rico and Hispaniola. Ancient DNA now shows they did not blend with the archipelago's earlier foragers so much as replace them. Fernandes and colleagues find over ninety-eight percent of the ceramic-age ancestry was newcomer, with the older Archaic population surviving mainly in western Cuba.", "contested": "The near-total genetic turnover is a recent and well-supported finding, and it supersedes older models of gradual acculturation between foragers and farmers.", "displaced": [ "Archaic-age foragers of the Antilles (Ortoiroid and Casimiroid)" ], "settlers": [ "Saladoid (Arawak-speaking) farmers from the lower Orinoco" ], "note": "An expansion case read from ancient DNA. It reframes the Caribbean's colonization as something that began millennia before 1492. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "caribbean_fernandes", "caribbean_keegan" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Trinidad", "lon": -61.25, "lat": 10.5 }, { "name": "Guadeloupe", "lon": -61.7, "lat": 16.15 }, { "name": "Puerto Rico", "lon": -66.1, "lat": 18.2 }, { "name": "Hispaniola", "lon": -70, "lat": 18.7 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Lower Orinoco (Saladero)", "lon": -62.9, "lat": 8.6 } ], "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "indonesian-transmigration", "name": "Indonesian Transmigration", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "strong", "dates": "1905–present", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1905, "end": 1941, "label": "Dutch colonisatie", "note": "Dutch colonisatie. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case." }, { "start": 1950, "end": 1965, "label": "Early republic programs", "note": "Early republic programs. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case." }, { "start": 1969, "end": 1998, "label": "New Order mass transmigration", "note": "New Order mass transmigration. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case." }, { "start": 1998, "end": 2026, "label": "Decentralized and spontaneous migration", "note": "Decentralized and spontaneous migration. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case." } ], "story": "For a century the state has moved poor farmers from crowded Java, Madura and Bali to Indonesia's outer islands and settled them on land that was already someone's. It began as Dutch kolonisatie in 1905 and became a vast program under Suharto, relocating millions onto forest and customary land in Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi. In Lampung the transmigrants became the majority. Dayak and other Indigenous peoples were pushed aside, and the resentment erupted in the Sampit killings of 2001.", "contested": "The state frames Transmigration as development and poverty relief. Critics call it internal colonization, and the recurrent violence between settlers and Indigenous peoples is widely tied to the land it took. Worldwide audit correction: Dutch-era colonisatie, New Order mass transmigration, province-specific settlement frontiers, and later decentralized or spontaneous migration have different coercive and demographic effects.", "displaced": [ "Dayak peoples of Kalimantan", "Indigenous peoples of Sulawesi and Sumatra" ], "settlers": [ "State-sponsored Javanese, Madurese, Balinese and Sundanese settlers" ], "note": "The clearest modern non-European settler program, run by an Asian state rather than an overseas empire. West Papua is treated as its own case. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; high confidence.", "sources": [ "transmig_hardjono", "transmig_fearnside" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Lampung, Sumatra", "lon": 105.3, "lat": -5.4 }, { "name": "Central Kalimantan", "lon": 113.4, "lat": -2.2 }, { "name": "Central Sulawesi (Poso)", "lon": 120.5, "lat": -1.4 }, { "name": "South Sumatra", "lon": 104.7, "lat": -3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Java", "lon": 110.4, "lat": -7.8 }, { "name": "Madura", "lon": 113.5, "lat": -7 }, { "name": "Bali", "lon": 115.2, "lat": -8.4 } ], "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "yunnan-han", "name": "Han colonization of the Yunnan frontier", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "partial", "dates": "c. 1382–1850 CE", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1382, "end": 1850, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1382–1644: Ming military colonization; 1644–1850: Qing migration, mining, and frontier administration.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1382, "end": 1644, "label": "Ming military colonization", "note": "Ming military colonization. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1644, "end": 1850, "label": "Qing migration, mining, and frontier administration", "note": "Qing migration, mining, and frontier administration. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Yunnan became part of China by settlement as much as by conquest. After the Ming took the south-west in 1382 they planted military-agricultural colonies, soldiers brought with their families, and civilian Han migrants followed for four centuries. The Tai, Yi, Bai and Hani were pushed into the uplands or absorbed as the basins around Kunming and Dali turned Han-majority. In the far south, among the Tai of Sipsong Panna, settlement stayed thin.", "contested": "The demographic shift is not much disputed. What scholars weigh is how much was deliberate state colonization versus commercial and refugee drift onto the frontier. Worldwide audit correction: Ming military colonies, Qing frontier administration and migration, mining booms, and suppression of local polities form multiple settlement waves over nearly five centuries.", "displaced": [ "Tai (Dai), Yi, Bai and Hani peoples of the south-west" ], "settlers": [ "Han military colonists and civilian migrants" ], "note": "A frontier settler process distinct from the atlas's Inner Mongolia and Xinjiang cases, and thinner in the Tai-majority far south. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "yunnan_giersch", "yunnan_yang" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Kunming", "lon": 102.7, "lat": 25 }, { "name": "Dali", "lon": 100.2, "lat": 25.6 }, { "name": "Dehong (Tai)", "lon": 98.6, "lat": 24.4 }, { "name": "Sipsong Panna (Jinghong)", "lon": 100.8, "lat": 22 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Central China (Ming recruits)", "lon": 113, "lat": 30 } ], "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "tai-ahom-assam", "name": "Tai-Ahom settlement of Assam", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1228–1826 CE", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1228, "end": 1826 } ], "story": "In 1228 a Tai prince named Sukaphaa crossed the Patkai hills from the upper Burma borderlands into the Brahmaputra valley with a few thousand followers, and the order they built lasted six hundred years. The Ahom cleared wet-rice land, bound the local Bodo-Kachari, Chutiya and Moran into a corvee-settlement system, and slowly made Assam their own even as they themselves took on Hindu ways. A small warrior-migrant elite that reshaped a valley.", "contested": "The history is solid. What is politically charged today is Tai-Ahom identity itself, revived and contested in modern Assam, which Yasmin Saikia traces.", "displaced": [ "Bodo-Kachari, Chutiya, Moran and Borahi peoples of the Brahmaputra valley" ], "settlers": [ "Tai (Ahom) migrants from the upper Burma-Yunnan borderlands" ], "note": "An eastern-India frontier case, a thin settler elite that endured and then assimilated. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "ahom_saikia", "ahom_gait" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Charaideo / Sivasagar", "lon": 94.9, "lat": 27 }, { "name": "Nagaon", "lon": 92.7, "lat": 26.3 }, { "name": "Guwahati", "lon": 91.7, "lat": 26.2 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Mong Mao, upper Burma-Yunnan border", "lon": 97.9, "lat": 24 } ], "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "bamar-pagan", "name": "Burman settlement of the Irrawaddy", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "9th–13th c. CE", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 849, "end": 1287, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 849–1044: Settlement before Pagan consolidation; 1044–1287: Pagan state formation and incorporation.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 849, "end": 1044, "label": "Settlement before Pagan consolidation", "note": "Settlement before Pagan consolidation. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1044, "end": 1287, "label": "Pagan state formation and incorporation", "note": "Pagan state formation and incorporation. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "The Burmans entered the Irrawaddy from the northern hills in the ninth century and made its dry heartland their own. As they built Bagan and its thousands of temples, the old Pyu city-states faded and their people were absorbed, and the Mon of the south were subordinated. The valley that had been Pyu and Mon became Burman, the demographic core of Myanmar to this day.", "contested": "The Pyu absorption is real, but the once-standard story of a great Mon kingdom at Thaton conquered by Bagan is challenged by Michael Aung-Thwin as a later legend. It is included partly for that dispute. Worldwide audit correction: The case infers a long demographic settlement from language, archaeology, and state formation; it does not establish one bounded displacement event or clearly identify affected predecessor communities.", "displaced": [ "Pyu city-states and Mon of the lower Irrawaddy" ], "settlers": [ "Burman (Bamar) migrants from the northern uplands" ], "note": "An expansion case whose founding narrative is itself contested scholarship. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "sources": [ "bamar_aungthwin", "bamar_lieberman" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Bagan", "lon": 94.87, "lat": 21.17 }, { "name": "Kyaukse", "lon": 96.1, "lat": 21.6 }, { "name": "Sri Ksetra (Pyu)", "lon": 95.29, "lat": 18.81 }, { "name": "Thaton (Mon)", "lon": 97.37, "lat": 16.92 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Nanzhao / Yunnan (Dali)", "lon": 100.2, "lat": 25.6 } ], "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "karafuto-sakhalin", "name": "Japanese Karafuto (southern Sakhalin)", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "core", "dates": "1905–1945", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1905, "end": 1945, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1905–1939: Japanese settler colonization; 1939–1945: Wartime forced labor and intensified extraction.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1905, "end": 1939, "label": "Japanese settler colonization", "note": "Japanese settler colonization. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1939, "end": 1945, "label": "Wartime forced labor and intensified extraction", "note": "Wartime forced labor and intensified extraction. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Japan took the southern half of Sakhalin from Russia in 1905 and made Karafuto a settler prefecture. Migrants poured in for the coal, timber and fisheries, and by the mid-1930s the population passed 300,000, overwhelmingly Japanese settlers, against roughly 2,000 Ainu, Uilta and Nivkh. Tessa Morris-Suzuki describes it as an overwhelmingly settler colony. The 1945 Soviet conquest ended it, and almost all the settlers were repatriated, the mirror image of the colony's rise.", "contested": "Scholarship treats Karafuto as a clear settler colony. The status of Korean labour migrants, many of them coerced, is separate from that of the Japanese settlers. Worldwide audit correction: Japanese settler colonization, Indigenous Ainu/Nivkh/Uilta dispossession, coerced Korean labor, and the 1945 Soviet takeover and population removals are distinct histories.", "note": "Korean labourers, many brought under coercion, are counted apart from the settler population. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; high confidence.", "displaced": [ "Ainu", "Uilta (Orok)", "Nivkh (Gilyak)" ], "settlers": [ "Japanese home-island settlers", "state-assisted migrants for coal, timber and fisheries" ], "sources": [ "karafuto_morris", "karafuto_paichadze" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Toyohara (Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk)", "lon": 142.74, "lat": 46.96 }, { "name": "Odomari (Korsakov)", "lon": 142.8, "lat": 46.63 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Japan (Hokkaido & the home islands)", "lon": 141.3, "lat": 43.1 } ], "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "maasai-expansion", "name": "Maasai expansion across the Rift Valley", "region": "Africa", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 1600–1870", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1600, "end": 1870 } ], "story": "The Maasai, Plains Nilotic pastoralists, spread south out of the Lake Turkana region across the Rift Valley from around the seventeenth century, taking the best grazing as they went. They moved into the stone-walled cattle country of the earlier Sirikwa, absorbed or drove off Southern Cushitic herders and Okiek hunter-gatherers, and in the nineteenth-century Iloikop wars the Maasai proper defeated and scattered rival Maa sections like the Kwavi and Laikipiak. Around 1850 they held a corridor from central Kenya to northern Tanzania, until the 1880s and 1890s brought rinderpest, smallpox and drought, the Mutai, and broke them.", "contested": "Maa-speaker expansion is well attested, but the Maasai were never one people, and much of the fighting was Maa section against Maa section. Earlier peoples were as often absorbed as replaced. It belongs here as pastoralist expansion, not a state project.", "note": "An expansion case of the pastoralist age. The Nandi push into the Uasin Gishu is its tail end, and the British later took the same highlands as the Kenya Highlands. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "displaced": [ "Sirikwa and earlier highland peoples", "Southern Cushitic pastoralists", "Okiek (Dorobo) hunter-gatherers", "Kwavi, Laikipiak and other defeated Maa sections" ], "settlers": [ "Maasai (Plains Nilotic pastoralists)" ], "sources": [ "being_maasai", "waller_expansion" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Central Rift Valley (Nakuru)", "lon": 36.07, "lat": -0.3 }, { "name": "Laikipia", "lon": 36.9, "lat": 0.4 }, { "name": "Maasai steppe (northern Tanzania)", "lon": 36.5, "lat": -3.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Maa homeland near Lake Turkana", "lon": 35.94, "lat": 3.51 } ], "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "nandi-uasin-gishu", "name": "Nandi expansion into the Uasin Gishu", "region": "Africa", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 1850–1890", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1850, "end": 1890 } ], "story": "In the middle of the nineteenth century the Nandi, a Kalenjin people of the western highlands, took the Uasin Gishu plateau from the Uasin Gishu Maasai, one of the Maasai sections. That section had already been broken in the Maasai civil wars, and the survivors were finished by the rinderpest, smallpox and drought of the 1890s. The Nandi moved into the wreckage as much as they conquered it, and held the plateau until the British seized it for white settlers around 1906.", "contested": "Whether the Nandi displaced the Maasai or filled land the Maasai wars and the 1890s disasters had already emptied is debated, the same question the Numic spread raises. Some accounts read parts of the plateau as earlier Nandi land retaken.", "note": "The tail end of the Rift Valley pastoralist wars, on highlands the British soon took as the Kenya Highlands. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "displaced": [ "Uasin Gishu Maasai (a defeated Maa section)" ], "settlers": [ "Nandi (Kalenjin, Southern Nilotic)" ], "sources": [ "huntingford_nandi", "being_maasai" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Uasin Gishu plateau (Eldoret)", "lon": 35.27, "lat": 0.52 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Nandi Hills", "lon": 35.1, "lat": 0.1 } ], "viewWidth": 18, "viewPadding": 6, "markerScale": 0.72, "originDisplay": "edge", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "ndebele-shona", "name": "Ndebele conquest of the Shona plateau", "region": "Africa", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 1838–1893", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1838, "end": 1893, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1838–1840: Ndebele migration and settlement; 1840–1890: Tribute, raiding, and regional incorporation; 1890–1893: Colonial invasion transforms the polity.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1838, "end": 1840, "label": "Ndebele migration and settlement", "note": "Ndebele migration and settlement. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1840, "end": 1890, "label": "Tribute, raiding, and regional incorporation", "note": "Tribute, raiding, and regional incorporation. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1890, "end": 1893, "label": "Colonial invasion transforms the polity", "note": "Colonial invasion transforms the polity. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 3 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Fleeing Shaka's Zulu, Mzilikazi led his Ndebele across the Limpopo, and by 1840 had built a kingdom on the high country of what is now south-western Zimbabwe. The Ndebele settled Matabeleland, raided the Shona chiefdoms for cattle and captives, and ruled the plateau until a British column broke the kingdom in 1893 and took the land for the settlers of Rhodesia.", "contested": "The extent of Ndebele domination over the Shona, raiding against tribute against outright conquest, is debated, and colonial writers exaggerated it to justify their own conquest. Worldwide audit correction: The label reduces a sequence involving the Rozvi state, Kalanga communities, multiple Ndebele migrations, tribute relations, raids, and later colonial ethnic categories to a single Ndebele-versus-Shona event.", "note": "A pre-colonial conquest the British settlement of Rhodesia then layered over. See the Southern Rhodesia case. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "displaced": [ "Shona and Kalanga chiefdoms of the plateau", "the remnant Rozvi state" ], "settlers": [ "Ndebele (Khumalo Nguni) under Mzilikazi and Lobengula" ], "sources": [ "rasmussen_ndebele", "beach_shona" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Matabeleland (Bulawayo)", "lon": 28.58, "lat": -20.15 }, { "name": "Shona plateau", "lon": 31, "lat": -18.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Zululand & the Transvaal highveld", "lon": 29.2, "lat": -26.5 } ], "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "oromo-expansion", "name": "Oromo expansion into the Ethiopian highlands", "region": "Africa", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 1522–1700", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1522, "end": 1700, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1522–1600: Southern and eastern highland movements; 1600–1700: Central and northern regional trajectories.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1522, "end": 1600, "label": "Southern and eastern highland movements", "note": "Southern and eastern highland movements. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1600, "end": 1700, "label": "Central and northern regional trajectories", "note": "Central and northern regional trajectories. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "From about 1522 the Oromo, Cushitic pastoralists organized by the gada age-grade system, pushed north and west out of the southern lowlands into the heart of Ethiopia. Over two centuries they took much of the central highlands, settling on land emptied by the recent wars between the Christian kingdom and the sultanate of Adal, and displacing or absorbing Sidama, Damot and frontier Amhara. The sixteenth-century monk Bahrey wrote the first account of them, from the Christian side.", "contested": "Whether to call this migration, expansion or invasion is politically charged in Ethiopia today. Much of the land had just been emptied by the Adal wars, so the Oromo often moved into a vacuum, and assimilation ran both ways. Worldwide audit correction: Two centuries of movement, alliance, adoption, conquest, assimilation, and state formation across a vast region cannot support a single displacement arrow or a single agent–victim story.", "note": "An expansion case that reshaped the Ethiopian highlands before any European involvement. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "displaced": [ "Sidama and Damot peoples", "frontier Amhara and Christian-kingdom populations", "the southern reach of the sultanate of Adal" ], "settlers": [ "Oromo (Cushitic pastoralists of the gada system)" ], "sources": [ "hassen_oromo", "bahrey_oromo" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Shewa", "lon": 38.7, "lat": 9 }, { "name": "Wollega", "lon": 36.4, "lat": 9.1 }, { "name": "Harar frontier", "lon": 42, "lat": 9.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Southern Oromo lowlands (Borana)", "lon": 38.5, "lat": 4.8 } ], "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "luo-migration", "name": "Luo migration into the Lake Victoria basin", "region": "Africa", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 1500–1850", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1500, "end": 1850, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1500–1650: Northern and western branch migrations; 1650–1850: Lake Victoria settlement and local incorporation.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1500, "end": 1650, "label": "Northern and western branch migrations", "note": "Northern and western branch migrations. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1650, "end": 1850, "label": "Lake Victoria settlement and local incorporation", "note": "Lake Victoria settlement and local incorporation. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "The Luo, River-Lake Nilotes, moved south out of the southern Sudan over several centuries and settled the eastern shore of Lake Victoria in what is now western Kenya. As they took the lakeshore and its fishing and grazing, they pushed the Bantu Gusii up into the highlands, absorbed other neighbours, and made Nyanza a Luo country.", "contested": "The Luo advance was slow and piecemeal, clan by clan, and it mixed conquest with intermarriage and absorption. It belongs here as a long Nilotic expansion, not a single campaign. Worldwide audit correction: The umbrella joins several migrations and settlements over centuries; language spread, intermarriage, political incorporation, and displacement differed across Acholi, Alur, Luo, and neighboring histories.", "note": "An expansion case, alongside the Maasai and Nandi movements. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "displaced": [ "Gusii and other Bantu of the lake basin, pushed to the highlands", "earlier Kalenjin-related peoples" ], "settlers": [ "Luo (River-Lake Nilotes)" ], "sources": [ "ogot_luo", "sutton_eastafrica" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Nyanza lakeshore (Kisumu)", "lon": 34.76, "lat": -0.1 }, { "name": "Siaya", "lon": 34.29, "lat": 0.06 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Southern Sudan (Bahr el Ghazal)", "lon": 29.5, "lat": 7.5 } ], "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "oorlam-namibia", "name": "Oorlam expansion into central Namibia", "region": "Africa", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 1815–1870", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1815, "end": 1870 } ], "story": "Armed with guns, horses and ox-wagons from the Cape frontier, Afrikaans-speaking Oorlam commandos crossed the Orange River into central Namibia from the 1810s. Under Jonker Afrikaner they made Windhoek their base, subdued the Nama chiefdoms and fought the Herero for the central grazing lands through mid-century, running a raiding and cattle economy until German colonization overtook it after 1884.", "contested": "The Oorlam were themselves a Cape-frontier people of mixed Khoe and settler descent, so this sits between an African expansion and an outrider of Cape colonial society.", "note": "A pre-colonial expansion German South West Africa then displaced. See the Namibia case. Worldwide audit: retained as an exact event unit; medium confidence.", "displaced": [ "Nama (Khoekhoe) chiefdoms", "Herero (Ovaherero) of the central highland" ], "settlers": [ "Oorlam (Orlam) commandos from the Cape frontier" ], "sources": [ "lau_namibia", "wallace_namibia" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Windhoek", "lon": 17.08, "lat": -22.57 }, { "name": "Okahandja", "lon": 16.91, "lat": -21.98 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Cape frontier / lower Orange", "lon": 18.5, "lat": -28.6 } ], "auditStatus": "retained — exact", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "sokoto-caliphate", "name": "The Fulani jihad and the Sokoto Caliphate", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "1804–1903", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1804, "end": 1903 } ], "story": "In 1804 the Fulani scholar Usman dan Fodio launched a jihad against the Hausa kings, and within a decade his followers had overthrown the Hausa city-states and built the Sokoto Caliphate, the largest state in nineteenth-century Africa. Fulani emirs took the thrones, Fulani pastoralists pressed onto Hausa and Middle Belt land, and the caliphate raided the non-Muslim south for captives until the British conquered it in 1903.", "contested": "The Hausa majority remained under new Fulani-led regimes. The case combines elite conquest, slave-raiding frontiers, tribute, and uneven pastoral settlement pressure rather than a uniform population replacement.", "note": "Included as an elite-conquest case, a deliberate contrast to the replacement expansions. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "displaced": [ "Hausa ruling classes of Kano, Katsina, Gobir and the other states", "non-Muslim Middle Belt peoples raided for captives" ], "settlers": [ "Fulani emirs, scholars and pastoralist settlers" ], "sources": [ "last_sokoto", "hiskett_dan_fodio" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Sokoto", "lon": 5.24, "lat": 13.06 }, { "name": "Kano", "lon": 8.52, "lat": 12 }, { "name": "Adamawa (Yola)", "lon": 12.49, "lat": 9.2 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Gobir & the Fulani homeland", "lon": 6, "lat": 13.5 } ], "mechanism": "Conquest, enslavement, and pastoral settlement", "affectedLabel": "Conquered / displaced", "actorLabel": "Conquerors / settlers", "auditStatus": "restored after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "banu-hilal", "name": "The Banu Hilal migration into the Maghreb", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "analogue", "dates": "c. 1050–1200", "extent": "large", "periods": [ { "start": 1050, "end": 1200, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1050–1100: Movement into Ifriqiya; 1100–1200: Westward settlement and regionally varied Arabization.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1050, "end": 1100, "label": "Movement into Ifriqiya", "note": "Movement into Ifriqiya. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1100, "end": 1200, "label": "Westward settlement and regionally varied Arabization", "note": "Westward settlement and regionally varied Arabization. The audit separates this phase from the other institutions and populations previously hidden inside the broad case.", "sequenceStep": 2 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Around 1050 the Fatimid rulers of Egypt loosed the Bedouin tribes of the Banu Hilal and Banu Sulaym westward into Ifriqiya as a punishment on a rebellious vassal. Tens of thousands of Arab nomads poured across North Africa over the following century, wrecking the Zirid towns, turning farmland to pasture, and spreading Arabic and Bedouin ways among the Amazigh. Ibn Khaldun, four centuries later, likened them to a swarm of locusts.", "contested": "Ibn Khaldun's catastrophe story is now heavily qualified. Historians see the Arabization of the Maghreb as a slower cultural process, so this is a diffuse migration and language shift, one of the loosest fits in the atlas. Worldwide audit correction: Migration is historically consequential, but sweeping claims that it simply displaced or replaced Amazigh populations require regional qualification and should distinguish language shift, pastoral conflict, and state policy.", "note": "An expansion case of nomadic migration and cultural turnover rather than organized settlement. Worldwide audit: corrected and retained as a bounded process; medium confidence.", "displaced": [ "Amazigh (Berber) rural and settled societies of Ifriqiya and the central Maghreb" ], "settlers": [ "Banu Hilal and Banu Sulaym Arab Bedouin" ], "sources": [ "ibn_khaldun", "julien_maghreb" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Ifriqiya (Kairouan)", "lon": 10.1, "lat": 35.68 }, { "name": "Central Maghreb (Constantine)", "lon": 6.6, "lat": 36.36 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Upper Egypt", "lon": 31.2, "lat": 26.2 } ], "auditStatus": "corrected existing process", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "af-bantu-farmer-settlement-congo-basin", "name": "Settlement and demographic expansion of Bantu-speaking farmers through the western and central African rainforest", "region": "Africa", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 3000 BCE–500 CE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -3000, "end": 500 } ], "story": "Farming populations moved gradually through and around the rainforest, mixed with some existing forager populations, and became demographically dominant in many regions. The process was neither one migration nor uniform replacement.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: Genetic and archaeological chronologies remain uneven, and modern language identity cannot be projected unchanged into the deep past.", "displaced": [ "Earlier rainforest forager communities, including populations ancestrally related to today's Aka, Baka, and Bagyeli, who were absorbed, marginalized, or displaced in different local sequences" ], "settlers": [ "Bantu-speaking farming communities moving through and around the western and central African rainforest" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "bantu_genetics", "bantu_pnas" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Africa", "lon": 18, "lat": -1 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Nigeria–Cameroon borderlands", "lon": 9.2, "lat": 5.7 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "af-bantu-farmer-settlement-great-lakes", "name": "Settlement of the Great Lakes region by Bantu-speaking farmers and ironworkers", "region": "Africa", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 800 BCE–1000 CE", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 48, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -800, "end": 1000 } ], "story": "Bantu-speaking farming and ironworking communities established durable settlements around the Great Lakes. Their interaction with Kansyore and other fisher-foragers, Batwa-related forest communities, and pastoralists included exchange and admixture as well as absorption, displacement, and marginalization.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: Urewe and Kansyore are archaeological traditions rather than ethnic names, and modern population identities cannot be projected unchanged into the deep past.", "displaced": [ "Kansyore and other fisher-forager communities around Lake Victoria; Batwa-related forest-forager populations; and earlier pastoralists who were absorbed, displaced, or pushed into ecological margins" ], "settlers": [ "Bantu-speaking farming and ironworking communities, including populations associated archaeologically with Urewe traditions" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "bantu_genetics", "bantu_mobility", "east_africa_food_producers_adna", "african_foragers_adna" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Northern Lake Victoria basin", "lon": 32.5, "lat": 0.65 }, { "name": "Rwanda–Burundi highlands", "lon": 29.9, "lat": -2.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Western Great Lakes source populations", "lon": 28.5, "lat": -1 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "af-bantu-farmer-settlement-eastern-africa", "name": "Settlement and demographic expansion of Bantu-speaking farmers through eastern Africa", "region": "Africa", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 500 BCE–1200 CE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 190, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -500, "end": 1200 } ], "story": "Bantu-speaking farmers established settlements through the Kenya–Tanzania interior and along the eastern African coast over many centuries. They encountered a mosaic of Kansyore and other foragers and Pastoral Neolithic herders; the resulting histories included coexistence and admixture as well as absorption, displacement, and confinement to less productive land.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: Kansyore and Pastoral Neolithic are archaeological labels, not ethnic names. Ancient foragers cannot simply be called Hadza or Sandawe, although those present-day peoples retain ancestry related to some earlier eastern African forager populations.", "displaced": [ "Kansyore and other eastern African foragers; Pastoral Neolithic herders associated with ancestral South Cushitic speakers; and forager populations related to the ancestors of today's Hadza and Sandawe" ], "settlers": [ "Bantu-speaking farming and, in many regions, ironworking communities moving from the Great Lakes into the Kenya–Tanzania interior and coast" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "bantu_genetics", "bantu_mobility", "east_africa_food_producers_adna", "african_foragers_adna" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Kenya–Tanzania interior", "lon": 36.4, "lat": -3.7 }, { "name": "Eastern African coast", "lon": 39.087, "lat": -6.441 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Great Lakes Bantu-speaking communities", "lon": 31.5, "lat": -3 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "af-bantu-farmer-settlement-southern-africa", "name": "Settlement and demographic expansion of Bantu-speaking farmers into southern Africa", "region": "Africa", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 200–1500 CE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 200, "end": 1500 } ], "story": "Ironworking farmers established settlements across southern Africa and eventually became numerically dominant in most arable regions. Khoe and San communities experienced different combinations of exchange, absorption, conflict, and retreat.", "displaced": [ "San foragers and Khoe pastoralists absorbed, displaced, or later confined to marginal zones" ], "settlers": [ "Bantu-speaking ironworking farming communities settling south of the Zambezi" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "bantu_genetics", "bantu_mobility" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Africa", "lon": 28, "lat": -23 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Zambia–Malawi–Mozambique farming communities", "lon": 31, "lat": -13 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "af-french-settlement-morocco", "name": "French and Spanish colonial settlement and land transfer in Morocco", "region": "Africa", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1912–1956", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 190, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1912, "end": 1956 } ], "story": "Protectorate governments facilitated European agricultural and urban settlement through official colonization projects, expropriation of collective land, and private transfer under a coercive colonial order.", "displaced": [ "Moroccan communities whose collective, state-classified, or privately transferred land entered colonization projects" ], "settlers": [ "French and Spanish protectorate authorities", "European farmers, businesses, and urban settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "af_morocco_colonization", "qc_morocco_settler_land" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Africa", "lon": -6, "lat": 32 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "France", "lon": 2.3, "lat": 46.5 }, { "name": "Spain", "lon": -3.7, "lat": 40.3 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "af-french-settlement-tunisia", "name": "French protectorate land colonization and European settlement in Tunisia", "region": "Africa", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1881–1956", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 170, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1881, "end": 1956 } ], "story": "The protectorate facilitated European acquisition of productive land and built a racially stratified colonial economy; European settlement was smaller and less replacement-oriented than in Algeria but still materially dispossessive.", "displaced": [ "Tunisian farmers, pastoralists, and communities losing land or access under colonial property policy" ], "settlers": [ "French protectorate authorities", "French, Italian, and other European settlers and land companies" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "af_tunisia_colonial_land", "qc_tunisia_european_settlement" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Africa", "lon": 9.5, "lat": 34.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "France", "lon": 2.3, "lat": 46.5 }, { "name": "Italy", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 42 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "af-sierra-leone-freetown-settler-colony", "name": "Freetown settler colony and dispossession of Temne land", "region": "Africa", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1787–1896", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 150, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 18, "reachFitCap": 560, "frameOrigins": [ { "name": "London", "lon": -0.13, "lat": 51.51 } ], "routeAnchors": [ { "label": "London", "lon": -0.13, "lat": 51.51, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "black_poor_and_abolitionist_settlement" }, { "label": "Halifax / Nova Scotia", "lon": -63.58, "lat": 44.7118, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "black_loyalist_settlement" }, { "label": "Kingston, Jamaica", "lon": -76.79, "lat": 17.97, "use": "prior_route_origin", "stream": "maroon_route_via_halifax" } ], "placeGloss": "The Jamaican Maroon sequence was Jamaica to Nova Scotia to Freetown. This view does not yet draw multi-leg networks, so Kingston is retained in the evidence record but is not shown as a false direct origin; London and Halifax are the immediate rendered sources.", "periods": [ { "start": 1787, "end": 1896 } ], "story": "A British-sponsored settlement for formerly enslaved and displaced Black Atlantic populations expanded from Freetown across the peninsula through a prolonged process of land dispossession at the expense of Temne communities.", "displaced": [ "Temne and other peninsula communities whose land claims were displaced by colonial expansion" ], "settlers": [ "British abolitionist and colonial institutions", "Black Poor, Nova Scotian, Maroon, and Liberated African settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "af_sierra_leone_settler_colony", "qc_freetown_land_dispossession" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Freetown peninsula", "lon": -13.0011, "lat": 8.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "London", "lon": -0.13, "lat": 51.51, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "black_poor_and_abolitionist_settlement" }, { "name": "Halifax / Nova Scotia", "lon": -63.58, "lat": 44.7118, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "black_loyalist_settlement" } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "af-portuguese-settlement-angola", "name": "Portuguese settler land colonization in Angola", "region": "Africa", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "c. 1900–1975", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 220, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 7, "reachFitCap": 560, "periods": [ { "start": 1900, "end": 1975 } ], "story": "Twentieth-century Portuguese migration, concessions, forced labor, and state-backed land allocation created settler zones and displaced or subordinated African producers in Angola.", "displaced": [ "African communities subjected to land alienation, forced labor, village concentration, and settler agriculture" ], "settlers": [ "Portuguese colonial state, companies, and settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "castelo", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Angolan colonial settlement zones", "lon": 17.2, "lat": -12.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Portugal", "lon": -8.1, "lat": 39.5 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "af-portuguese-settlement-mozambique", "name": "Portuguese concessions, settler agriculture, and forced labor in Mozambique", "region": "Africa", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1890–1975", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 220, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1890, "end": 1975 } ], "story": "Colonial authorities and companies converted extensive land into concessions and plantations, using taxation and forced labor to make African producers work for colonial enterprises and migrant-labor systems.", "displaced": [ "Mozambican communities subjected to concession rule, land alienation, forced labor, and compulsory crop regimes" ], "settlers": [ "Portuguese colonial state, chartered companies, plantation owners, and settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "castelo", "af_mozambique_colonial_labor" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Africa", "lon": 20, "lat": 3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Portugal", "lon": -8.1, "lat": 39.5 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "af-british-estates-malawi", "name": "British estate land alienation and thangata labor in Nyasaland", "region": "Africa", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1891–1962", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 160, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1891, "end": 1962 } ], "story": "Colonial recognition of European land claims converted large areas of southern Malawi into private estates; African residents paid rent through coerced labor known as colonial thangata and faced removals and land shortage.", "displaced": [ "Malawian communities converted into tenants or removed from alienated estates" ], "settlers": [ "British protectorate authorities", "European estate owners and companies" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "af_malawi_thangata", "qc_malawi_thangata" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Africa", "lon": 34, "lat": -14 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Britain", "lon": -1.5, "lat": 52 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "af-eswatini-concession-partition", "name": "Concession conquest and land partition in Eswatini", "region": "Africa", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1881–1910", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 150, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1881, "end": 1910 } ], "story": "Foreign concession seekers acquired sweeping mineral and land claims; colonial partition converted much land into settler or company property and confined Swazi occupation to designated areas.", "displaced": [ "Swazi communities whose customary land was concessioned and partitioned" ], "settlers": [ "Boer and British concessionaires and colonial authorities", "Swazi royal intermediaries" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "af_eswatini_concessions", "qc_eswatini_partition_law" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Eswatini", "lon": 31.45, "lat": -26.55 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "South African settler frontier", "lon": 28, "lat": -30 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "af-italian-settlement-eritrea", "name": "Italian conquest, land appropriation, and settlement in Eritrea", "region": "Africa", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1882–1941", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 170, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1882, "end": 1941 } ], "story": "Italy conquered Eritrea, appropriated land and infrastructure, and built a racially segregated colony with substantial urban and planned agricultural settlement, especially under Fascism.", "displaced": [ "Eritrean communities subjected to conquest, expropriation, racial rule, and colonial labor demands" ], "settlers": [ "Italian colonial and Fascist states", "Italian soldiers, farmers, workers, and urban settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "af_italian_east_africa", "qc_eritrea_colonisation" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Eritrean colonial settlement zone", "lon": 39.05, "lat": 15.2 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Italy", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 42 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "af-italian-settlement-somalia", "name": "Italian settler plantations and land reservation in Somalia", "region": "Africa", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1889–1941", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 200, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 7, "reachFitCap": 560, "periods": [ { "start": 1889, "end": 1941 } ], "story": "Colonial officials reserved riverine farmland and promoted Italian concessions and cooperative settler colonies, relying on coercive control of local land and labor.", "displaced": [ "Somali riverine cultivators and subordinated farming communities whose land and labor were appropriated" ], "settlers": [ "Italian colonial and Fascist states", "Italian settler farmers and concessionaires" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "af_somalia_italian_settlement", "af_italian_east_africa" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Italian Somaliland and southern Somalia", "lon": 45.35, "lat": 3.85 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Italy", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 42 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "af-ethiopian-southern-conquest-neftenya", "name": "Menelik's southern conquests, land expropriation, and neftenya settlement", "region": "Africa", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "c. 1875–1935", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 190, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1875, "end": 1935 } ], "story": "Menelik's state conquered southern and western polities, expropriated extensive land, allocated rights to soldiers and churches, founded garrison towns, and reduced many cultivators to tribute-paying tenants and laborers.", "displaced": [ "Oromo, Sidama, Wolayta, and other southern and western communities whose land and labor were subordinated" ], "settlers": [ "The Shewan and Ethiopian imperial state", "Northern soldiers, officials, church institutions, and favored local intermediaries" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "af_ethiopia_southern_conquest", "qc_ethiopia_menelik_dispossession" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Africa", "lon": 38, "lat": 6 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Southern Oromo lowlands (Borana)", "lon": 38.5, "lat": 4.8 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "af-chagos-forced-removal", "name": "Forced removal of the Chagossians for the Diego Garcia base", "region": "Indian Ocean", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "development/conservation displacement", "dates": "1965–1973", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 22, "viewPadding": 3, "markerScale": 0.3, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1965, "end": 1973 } ], "story": "Britain detached the archipelago, prevented islanders from returning after travel, and forcibly removed the remaining population so the United States could build the Diego Garcia base.", "displaced": [ "Chagossian islanders removed to Mauritius and Seychelles and denied return" ], "settlers": [ "The United Kingdom and United States governments" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: development/conservation displacement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "af_chagos_displacement", "qc_chagos_icj" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Diego Garcia", "lon": 72.4313, "lat": -7.315 }, { "name": "Île du Coin, Peros Banhos", "lon": 71.7635, "lat": -5.4323 }, { "name": "Île Boddam, Salomon Islands", "lon": 72.225, "lat": -5.325 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Britain", "lon": -2.843, "lat": 54.01 }, { "name": "United States", "lon": -98.6, "lat": 38.3 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "af-bioko-colonial-plantations", "name": "Spanish plantation colonization and coerced labor on Bioko", "region": "Africa", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1858–1968", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 45, "viewPadding": 15, "markerScale": 0.45, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 16, "reachFitCap": 520, "periods": [ { "start": 1858, "end": 1968 } ], "story": "Spanish rule made Bioko the center of a cocoa plantation economy, combining European and creole landholding with coerced or tightly controlled migrant labor and Bubi political marginalization.", "displaced": [ "Bubi communities subjected to colonial rule and plantation land pressure", "Nigerian and continental African laborers recruited under coercive conditions" ], "settlers": [ "Spanish colonial authorities and planters", "Fernandino and European plantation elites", "Imported contract labor systems" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "af_bioko_colonial", "qc_bioko_colonial" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Bioko", "lon": 8.7, "lat": 3.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Spain", "lon": -3.7, "lat": 40.3 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "eu-gibraltar-conquest-population-replacement", "name": "Anglo-Dutch capture of Gibraltar, Spanish exodus, and new colonial population", "region": "Europe", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1704–c. 1800", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 160, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1704, "end": 1800 } ], "story": "After Anglo-Dutch capture, fewer than one hundred Spanish residents remained. British military occupation and immigration from around the Mediterranean formed a new civilian community whose descendants developed a distinct Gibraltarian identity.", "displaced": [ "Most of Gibraltar's Spanish residents, who left after the conquest" ], "settlers": [ "Anglo-Dutch forces and the British garrison and colonial state", "Incoming British, Genoese, Jewish, Maltese, Moroccan, Portuguese, and other civilians" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "eu_gibraltar_settlement", "qc_gibraltar_census" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Gibraltar", "lon": -5.3815, "lat": 36.0847 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "England", "lon": -2.843, "lat": 54.01 }, { "name": "Netherlands", "lon": 5.3, "lat": 52 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "am-spanish-conquest-congregacion-mesoamerica", "name": "Spanish conquest, settler land transfer, and congregación in Mesoamerica", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1519–c. 1700", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1519, "end": 1700 } ], "story": "Conquest and disease shattered existing polities; colonial authorities concentrated surviving populations into grid towns, imposed encomienda and labor demands, and enabled Spanish estates, ranches, mines, and cities to take land. Indigenous communities persisted and used colonial law, so the result was not simple extinction or total replacement.", "displaced": [ "Indigenous communities subjected to conquest, epidemic collapse, forced town concentration, labor drafts, tribute, and settler land encroachment" ], "settlers": [ "Spanish crown, conquistadors, settlers, religious orders, and allied Indigenous forces" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "am_spanish_mexico_congregacion", "qc_mesoamerica_congregacion" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Latin America and the Caribbean", "lon": -94, "lat": 17 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Castile & Andalusian ports", "lon": -6, "lat": 37.4 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "am-spanish-conquest-reduccion-andes", "name": "Spanish conquest, reducciones, and colonial land-labor order in the Andes", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1532–c. 1700", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 340, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1532, "end": 1700 } ], "story": "Spanish rule concentrated dispersed Andean settlements into reducciones, mobilized labor for mines and estates, transferred land, and established durable settler institutions. Indigenous survival and legal adaptation do not negate forced relocation and dispossession.", "displaced": [ "Andean communities subjected to conquest, epidemic collapse, forced resettlement, mita labor, tribute, and land appropriation" ], "settlers": [ "Spanish crown, conquistadors, settlers, religious orders, mine and estate owners" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "am_spanish_andean_reduccion", "qc_andes_reduccion" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Latin America and the Caribbean", "lon": -72, "lat": -12 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Cusco (imperial core)", "lon": -71.97, "lat": -13.52 }, { "name": "Chachapoyas", "lon": -77.87, "lat": -6.23 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "am-dutch-guiana-plantation-colonization", "name": "Dutch plantation colonization, Indigenous war, and slavery in the Guianas", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "c. 1650–1863", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 220, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 5, "periods": [ { "start": 1650, "end": 1863 } ], "story": "English and Dutch settlers expanded plantations through Indigenous territory, fought an Indigenous war, and built a population and economy overwhelmingly through enslaved African labor; escaped captives established autonomous Maroon communities in the interior.", "displaced": [ "Kalinago/Carib and Lokono/Arawak communities displaced by plantation expansion", "Enslaved Africans transported to work plantations", "Maroon communities attacked by colonial forces" ], "settlers": [ "Dutch and earlier English colonial companies and settlers", "Plantation owners and colonial militias" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "am_suriname_plantation", "qc_dutch_guiana" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Suriname and the Guiana plantation coast", "lon": -55.2, "lat": 5.65 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Netherlands", "lon": 5.3, "lat": 52 }, { "name": "Britain", "lon": -2.843, "lat": 54.01 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "am-garifuna-deportation-st-vincent", "name": "British deportation of the Garifuna from Saint Vincent", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "expulsion/deportation/ethnic cleansing", "dates": "1796–1797", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 130, "viewPadding": 30, "markerScale": 0.62, "originDisplay": "edge", "routeAnchors": [ { "label": "Saint Vincent", "lon": -61.2, "lat": 13.25, "use": "forced_route_origin", "stream": "garifuna_removal" }, { "label": "Balliceaux", "lon": -61.15, "lat": 12.95, "use": "route_waypoint", "stream": "detention_and_embarkation" }, { "label": "Roatán", "lon": -86.54, "lat": 16.32, "use": "route_destination", "stream": "deportation_destination" } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1796, "end": 1797 } ], "story": "After defeating Garifuna resistance, Britain deported survivors from Saint Vincent to Roatán. Garifuna communities then established settlements along the Caribbean coasts of Honduras, Belize, Guatemala, and Nicaragua.", "displaced": [ "Garifuna/Black Carib people defeated, confined, and deported to Roatán" ], "settlers": [ "British colonial forces and authorities" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: expulsion/deportation/ethnic cleansing. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "am_garifuna_deportation", "qc_garifuna_deportation" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Roatán", "lon": -86.54, "lat": 16.32 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Saint Vincent", "lon": -61.2, "lat": 13.25, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin", "routeStream": "garifuna_removal" } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "am-french-saint-domingue-plantation-colony", "name": "French settler plantation colony and slavery in Saint-Domingue", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1659–1804", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 150, "viewPadding": 23, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 10, "periods": [ { "start": 1659, "end": 1804 } ], "story": "France and its settlers seized western Hispaniola and imported hundreds of thousands of enslaved Africans into an extraordinarily lethal sugar and coffee plantation system; the Haitian Revolution destroyed settler rule and slavery.", "displaced": [ "Taíno survivors and neighboring Indigenous communities", "Enslaved Africans transported into lethal plantation labor" ], "settlers": [ "French crown, settlers, plantation owners, and colonial troops" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "am_suriname_plantation", "qc_saint_domingue" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Western Hispaniola / Saint-Domingue", "lon": -72.6883, "lat": 19.004 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Nantes and the French Atlantic ports", "lon": -1.5536, "lat": 47.2184 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "asia-indonesian-occupation-timor-leste", "name": "Indonesian occupation, forced resettlement, and removals from Timor-Leste", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "1975–1999", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 60, "viewPadding": 6, "markerScale": 0.58, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1975, "end": 1999 } ], "story": "Occupation forces repeatedly uprooted Timorese civilians into controlled settlements, generated famine and mass death, removed children to Indonesia, and transported many displaced people out of the territory during the 1999 destruction campaign.", "displaced": [ "Timorese civilians killed, displaced into controlled settlements, forcibly transported, or removed as children" ], "settlers": [ "The Indonesian state and armed forces", "Indonesian civilian migrants under occupation-era policy" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "asia_timor_children_un", "qc_timor_cavr" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Occupied Timor-Leste", "lon": 125.62, "lat": -8.72 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Jakarta / Indonesian military-state core", "lon": 106.86, "lat": -6.25 }, { "name": "West Timor occupation and removal corridor", "lon": 124.3, "lat": -9.6 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "asia-qing-colonization-xinjiang", "name": "Qing conquest and military-agricultural colonization of Xinjiang", "region": "East & Central Asia", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1755–1911", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 310, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1755, "end": 1911 } ], "story": "After conquering and depopulating Dzungaria, the Qing built a multiethnic military-agricultural frontier through garrisons, colonies, penal settlement, and sponsored migration while ruling existing oasis populations separately.", "displaced": [ "Dzungars destroyed or removed during conquest", "Uyghur and other oasis and pastoral communities subordinated under frontier rule" ], "settlers": [ "Qing state, banner garrisons, military farmers, convicts, and sponsored Han, Hui, Manchu, Mongol, and other migrants" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "dzungar", "perdue", "xinjiang" ], "targets": [ { "name": "East and Central Asia", "lon": 84, "lat": 42 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Gansu & Shaanxi", "lon": 105, "lat": 35.8 }, { "name": "Manchuria / Sibe garrisons", "lon": 124, "lat": 45 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "asia-prc-xinjiang-xpcc-settlement", "name": "PRC state settlement and Production and Construction Corps expansion in Xinjiang", "region": "East & Central Asia", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "1949–present", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 310, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1949, "end": 2026 } ], "story": "The PRC used the XPCC and other state institutions to settle migrants, open farms and cities, control strategic land and water, and reshape the region's demographic and administrative balance.", "displaced": [ "Uyghur, Kazakh, and other Indigenous or long-established communities facing land, water, political, and demographic marginalization" ], "settlers": [ "The People's Republic of China", "Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps", "State-facilitated Han and other migrants" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "xinjiang", "xpcc_bsg" ], "targets": [ { "name": "East and Central Asia", "lon": 84, "lat": 42 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Gansu corridor", "lon": 100.5, "lat": 39 }, { "name": "North China", "lon": 113, "lat": 36 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "pacific-papua-new-guinea-colonial-plantations", "name": "German and Australian plantation colonization in Papua New Guinea", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1884–1975", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 190, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1884, "end": 1975 } ], "story": "German company rule and later Australian administration facilitated plantation settlement and labor recruitment. Customary tenure survived across most land, but specific coastal and island districts experienced alienation and durable colonial occupation.", "displaced": [ "Papuan and New Guinean communities whose land and labor were claimed by plantations, missions, mines, and administration" ], "settlers": [ "German, British, and Australian colonial authorities", "European and Australian plantation owners and settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "pacific_png_colonial", "qc_png_colonial" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Pacific and Oceania", "lon": 145, "lat": -6.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Germany", "lon": 10, "lat": 51 }, { "name": "Australia", "lon": 147, "lat": -35 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "asia-japanese-colonial-taiwan", "name": "Japanese conquest, settlement, and Indigenous land administration in Taiwan", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1895–1945", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 170, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1895, "end": 1945 } ], "story": "Japan annexed Taiwan, defeated armed resistance, surveyed and reorganized land tenure, expanded state and corporate control, settled a substantial Japanese population, and violently incorporated Indigenous mountain territories. Japanese settlers never became a majority, so the case is colonial conquest with settlement rather than simple demographic replacement.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: Colonial development and the survival of Taiwanese family farming do not erase conquest, coercion, or Indigenous land loss; the event should distinguish island-wide colonial governance from frontier campaigns against particular Indigenous nations.", "displaced": [ "Taiwanese Indigenous nations subjected to military conquest, territorial enclosure, and intrusive land administration", "Han Taiwanese residents subjected to colonial land, policing, labor, and assimilation policies" ], "settlers": [ "Japanese colonial government and military", "Japanese civilian settlers, companies, and agricultural enterprises" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "taiwan", "qc_japanese_taiwan_indigenous" ], "targets": [ { "name": "East Asia", "lon": 121, "lat": 24 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Fujian", "lon": 118.1, "lat": 25.8 }, { "name": "Guangdong", "lon": 113.3, "lat": 23.2 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "eu-medieval-ostsiedlung", "name": "Medieval eastward settlement (Ostsiedlung) beyond Prussia", "region": "Europe", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "c. 1050–1400", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 280, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1050, "end": 1400 } ], "story": "Settlers and institutions from the German-speaking west founded towns and villages across Slavic- and Baltic-speaking regions. Some settlement was invited and negotiated; elsewhere it followed conquest, transferred jurisdiction and land, or subordinated existing communities.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: The nationalist term and older replacement narratives are heavily contested. Local studies must distinguish new settlement and legal privilege from expulsion or demographic replacement.", "displaced": [ "Slavic and Baltic rural communities where conquest, lordship, or new tenure displaced or subordinated them" ], "settlers": [ "German-, Dutch-, and Flemish-speaking settlers", "secular and ecclesiastical lords", "town founders and military orders" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "eu_ostsiedlung_lubke", "qc_ostsiedlung" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Europe", "lon": 16, "lat": 52 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "German lands of the Empire", "lon": 11, "lat": 51 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "eu-norman-conquest-settlement-wales", "name": "Norman conquest and marcher settlement in Wales", "region": "Europe", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1067–1283", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 160, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1067, "end": 1283 } ], "story": "Norman lords established marcher lordships, castles, boroughs, and settler enclaves across eastern and southern Wales before Edward I completed the conquest.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: The scale of direct population displacement varied sharply; this is a conquest-and-settlement case, not a claim of wholesale Welsh replacement.", "displaced": [ "Welsh polities and communities subjected to marcher lordship, castle building, borough settlement, and land transfer" ], "settlers": [ "Norman and allied marcher lords", "English, Flemish, and other settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "eu_norman_wales_davies", "qc_norman_wales" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Europe", "lon": -3.5, "lat": 52.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Norman borderlands", "lon": -1, "lat": 49 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "eu-iberian-christian-conquest-repopulation", "name": "Christian conquest, land distribution, and settler repopulation in Iberia beyond Valencia", "region": "Europe", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1085–1570", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 230, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1085, "end": 1570 } ], "story": "As Christian kingdoms conquered al-Andalus, they redistributed land and jurisdiction and introduced settlers. Outcomes ranged from continuity under new rule to expulsion and replacement, so regional cases are preferable to a single Reconquista arrow.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: Traditional depopulation-and-repopulation narratives exaggerate emptiness in some regions; the finding is strongest where records document expulsion, land repartition, and new settlement.", "displaced": [ "Andalusi Muslim communities and landholders", "Mudéjar communities subjected to expulsion, transfer, or reduced tenure" ], "settlers": [ "Castilian, Aragonese, Catalan, Leonese, and Portuguese crowns", "Christian military orders and settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "eu_reconquista_lleida", "eu_reconquista_valencia" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Europe", "lon": -5, "lat": 39.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Crown of Aragon & Catalan counties", "lon": 1.2, "lat": 41.4 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "eu-habsburg-military-frontier", "name": "Habsburg Military Frontier settlement and militarized resettlement", "region": "Europe", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "1522–1881", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 280, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1522, "end": 1881 } ], "story": "The Habsburg monarchy organized a militarized frontier, granted land in return for service, and resettled refugees and soldiers into a repeatedly depopulated and reconquered border zone.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: Many settlers were themselves refugees from Ottoman warfare. The system was coercive and colonial in administration, but local victim/beneficiary roles changed across centuries.", "displaced": [ "Residents subjected to military tenure, compulsory service, land reorganization, or displacement in a changing Ottoman–Habsburg borderland" ], "settlers": [ "Habsburg authorities", "frontier soldier-settlers including Serb, Croat, German, Romanian, and other refugee communities" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "eu_habsburg_frontier", "qc_habsburg_frontier", "habsburg_tkalec_2020" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Europe", "lon": 18, "lat": 45.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Habsburg lands", "lon": 16.4, "lat": 48.2 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "eu-ottoman-settlement-cyprus", "name": "Ottoman conquest and Muslim settlement of Cyprus", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1571–1878", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 270, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1571, "end": 1878 } ], "story": "After conquest, Ottoman authorities introduced Muslim military, administrative, artisan, and farming populations whose descendants became the Turkish Cypriot community.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: The degree of removal versus continuity and conversion varied; the event should not be used to deny the indigeneity or long residence of either modern Cypriot community.", "displaced": [ "Greek-speaking Orthodox and other Cypriot communities subjected to conquest, confiscation, and new rule" ], "settlers": [ "Ottoman state", "soldiers, administrators, artisans, peasants, and other Muslim settlers from Anatolia" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "eu_ottoman_cyprus", "qc_ottoman_cyprus" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Europe", "lon": 13, "lat": 50 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Turkey", "lon": 35, "lat": 39 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "eu-nazi-implemented-polish-expulsions", "name": "Nazi expulsions, Germanization, and settlement in annexed Poland", "region": "Europe", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1939–1944", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 270, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1939, "end": 1944 } ], "story": "German authorities expelled Poles and Jews, seized farms and homes, resettled ethnic Germans, and abducted children for Germanization in territories incorporated into the Reich.", "displaced": [ "Poles and Jews expelled from annexed western Polish territories", "Polish children selected for Germanization" ], "settlers": [ "Nazi German occupation authorities", "ethnic-German resettlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "eu_nazi_polish_expulsions_ushmm", "qc_nazi_poland" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Europe", "lon": 13, "lat": 50 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Nazi Germany", "lon": 10.5, "lat": 51.2 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "danish-norwegian-initial-colonization-west-greenland", "name": "Danish-Norwegian mission-and-trade colonization of West Greenland", "region": "North America", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "conquest without substantial settlement", "affectedLabel": "Colonized communities", "actorLabel": "Colonial institutions", "dates": "1721–1782", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 135, "viewPadding": 22, "markerScale": 0.56, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1721, "end": 1782, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1721–1726: Haabets Koloni and the Bergen company; 1726–1750: Crown support, mission growth, and Jacob Severin's monopoly; 1750–1782: Expanded monopoly network before the 1782 Instrux.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1721, "end": 1726, "label": "Haabets Koloni and the Bergen company", "note": "Egede's expedition established Haabets Koloni at Kangeq under crown authorization and Bergen merchant organization. This began the sustained mission-and-trade project among nearby Kalaallit communities.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1726, "end": 1750, "label": "Crown support, mission growth, and Jacob Severin's monopoly", "note": "The Crown and successive licensed operators sustained the small colonial network. European personnel remained a thin posted stratum; Greenlandic production remained essential to the trade. A 1733 smallpox outbreak caused severe local mortality, but no compatible population denominator survives for event-wide scoring.", "sequenceStep": 2 }, { "start": 1750, "end": 1782, "label": "Expanded monopoly network before the 1782 Instrux", "note": "Successive monopoly institutions extended the colony-town and trade-station network. The 1782 Instrux introduced a more formalized and separationist administrative regime.", "sequenceStep": 3 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Beginning in 1721, Danish-Norwegian crown-backed missionaries and successive monopoly companies established a network of small colonial towns and mission-and-trade stations in West Greenland. These externally governed nodes exercised institutional control over land and organized trade and mission activity around nearby Kalaallit communities. European personnel remained few and were largely posted for fixed terms, while Greenlandic producers sustained the colonial trade. This was colonial incorporation, not mass European settler replacement.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: The evidence does not establish coast-wide occupation, Indigenous tenure extinguishment, mass removal, or Indigenous cession. Danish-Norwegian elites justified the project partly through an asserted continuity with medieval Norwegian rule; that was a colonial rationale, not evidence of unbroken Scandinavian occupation or Kalaallit consent. A 1733 smallpox outbreak followed the return of a Greenlander from Denmark and caused severe local mortality around Godthåb, but the available account supplies no denominator for the affected network. The 1925 Ittoqqortoormiit movement, 1953–55 Inughuit removal, post-1782 separation and assimilation regimes, East Greenland's later incorporation, and later constitutional transitions occurred under later regimes and are not part of this 1721–1782 chronology.", "displaced": [ "Kalaallit and other Inuit communities living near the West Greenland colony-town, mission, and trade network" ], "settlers": [ "The Danish-Norwegian Crown", "Hans Egede and crown-backed mission institutions", "Successive monopoly companies, merchants, and posted colonial personnel" ], "sources": [ "greenland_neergaard_2025", "greenland_olesen_2019", "greenland_trap_egede", "greenland_trap_colonial_period", "greenland_olesen_daily_life_1721_1750", "greenland_pcij_1933", "statistics_greenland_figures_2025" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Haabets Colonie / Kangeq (1721)", "lon": -51.691, "lat": 64.3413 }, { "name": "Godthåb / Nuuk colonial administration", "lon": -51.4002, "lat": 64.2045 }, { "name": "Godhavn / Qeqertarsuaq colonial station", "lon": -53.3962, "lat": 69.3379 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Bergen and the Bergen Greenland Company", "lon": 5.5254, "lat": 60.39 } ], "evidence": "Open-access legal history, peer-reviewed territorial history, Danish and Greenlandic expert syntheses, a judicial record, and official statistics", "auditStatus": "bounded event added after source review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "mena-arab-conquest-settlement-maghreb", "name": "Arab conquest and early settlement in the Maghreb", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "647–c. 800", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 360, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 647, "end": 800 } ], "story": "Arab forces conquered the Maghreb through repeated campaigns and established garrisons and new states. Amazigh resistance, accommodation, conversion, and participation make this a conquest-and-settlement history, not a simple replacement narrative.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: The scale and timing of Arab demographic settlement varied sharply; language shift and Islamization do not by themselves prove displacement.", "displaced": [ "Amazigh communities and Byzantine-ruled North African populations subjected to conquest, taxation, enslavement, revolt, and political subordination" ], "settlers": [ "Umayyad and Abbasid armies, governors, garrisons, and migrants" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "mena_arab_conquest_north_africa", "qc_arab_maghreb" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Middle East and North Africa", "lon": 6, "lat": 34 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Upper Egypt", "lon": 31.2, "lat": 26.2 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "mena-hazara-war-dispossession", "name": "Hazara conquest, enslavement, and land dispossession", "region": "Central & South Asia", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "genocide-linked clearance", "dates": "1888–1893", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 190, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1888, "end": 1893 } ], "story": "Abd al-Rahman's forces crushed Hazara resistance through mass violence and enslavement. Large numbers fled or were removed, and confiscated lands were transferred to Pashtun groups and state allies.", "displaced": [ "Hazara communities of Hazarajat" ], "settlers": [ "The Afghan state under Amir Abd al-Rahman Khan", "tribal forces rewarded with Hazara land" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: genocide-linked clearance. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "mena_hazara_war", "qc_hazara_parliament" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Central and South Asia", "lon": 66.5, "lat": 34.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Kabul state", "lon": 69.2, "lat": 34.5 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "mena-pashtun-resettlement-northern-afghanistan", "name": "State-led Pashtun resettlement in northern Afghanistan", "region": "Central & South Asia", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "c. 1880–1921", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 190, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1880, "end": 1921 } ], "story": "Afghan rulers relocated Pashtun communities to the north to consolidate territorial rule. The policy altered landholding, electoral and ethnic geography, and relations with existing northern populations.", "displaced": [ "Uzbek, Tajik, Turkmen, Hazara, and other northern communities whose land and political position were altered" ], "settlers": [ "Afghan rulers and officials", "Pashtun settlers relocated north" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "mena_pashtun_resettlement", "qc_pashtun_north" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Central and South Asia", "lon": 66, "lat": 36.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Southern Afghan state core", "lon": 67.5, "lat": 32 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "mena-zionist-settlement-ottoman-mandate-palestine", "name": "Zionist land acquisition, immigration, and institution-building in Ottoman and Mandate Palestine", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1882–1947", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 160, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1882, "end": 1947 } ], "story": "Successive Jewish immigration waves built durable agricultural settlements, urban communities, land institutions, labor organizations, and a parallel polity in Palestine. The process included refugee migration and lawful purchase, but also tenant displacement and an explicit territorial-national settlement project.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: The settler-colonial classification is contested because Jews have ancient ties to the land, many migrants were refugees, and there was no conventional metropole. Those facts affect interpretation but do not erase documented land, labor, and territorial practices.", "displaced": [ "Palestinian Arab tenants, laborers, and communities displaced or excluded in particular land purchases and settlement projects" ], "settlers": [ "Zionist institutions", "Jewish immigrants and settlement organizations" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "zionism_paradigm", "penslar_2017", "zionism_beinin", "zionism_corrective" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Middle East and North Africa", "lon": 35.1, "lat": 31.7 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Russian Empire & eastern Europe", "lon": 30.5, "lat": 50.4 }, { "name": "Central Europe", "lon": 16.4, "lat": 48.2 }, { "name": "Iraq (Baghdad)", "lon": 44.4, "lat": 33.3 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "mena-nakba-palestinian-displacement", "name": "Nakba: Palestinian expulsion, flight, village destruction, and property transfer", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "genocide-linked clearance", "dates": "1947–1952", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 160, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1947, "end": 1952 } ], "story": "War, expulsions, attacks, and fear displaced more than half of Palestine's Arab population. Israel prevented most refugees from returning, destroyed or repurposed hundreds of communities, and transferred extensive refugee land and property to state and Jewish use.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: The relative weight of direct expulsion, military assault, fear, local flight decisions, and Arab orders is debated by locality; the mass displacement and prevention of return are not.", "displaced": [ "Palestinian Arabs expelled or driven into flight", "Internally displaced Palestinians barred from returning to their villages" ], "settlers": [ "Zionist militias and the Israeli state and military" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: genocide-linked clearance. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "morris_revisited", "unrwa_1948", "clapp_unccp", "mena_nakba_khalidi", "mena_1948_refugees" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Middle East and North Africa", "lon": 35.1, "lat": 31.7 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Russian Empire & eastern Europe", "lon": 30.5, "lat": 50.4 }, { "name": "Central Europe", "lon": 16.4, "lat": 48.2 }, { "name": "Iraq (Baghdad)", "lon": 44.4, "lat": 33.3 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "mena-negev-bedouin-dispossession", "name": "Negev Bedouin dispossession, concentration, and village nonrecognition", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "1948–present", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 150, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "routeAnchors": [ { "label": "Western and northwestern Negev communities", "lon": 34.55, "lat": 31.2, "use": "forced_route_origin", "stream": "bedouin_removal" }, { "label": "Siyag concentration area", "lon": 34.95, "lat": 31.25, "use": "route_destination", "stream": "bedouin_concentration" }, { "label": "Beersheba", "lon": 34.79, "lat": 31.25, "use": "actor_node", "stream": "state_administration" } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1948, "end": 2026 } ], "story": "After most Negev Bedouin were displaced outside Israel, remaining communities were concentrated in a restricted zone. Land claims were denied, villages left unrecognized, homes repeatedly demolished, and residents pressured or forced into planned townships while Jewish localities expanded.", "displaced": [ "Palestinian Bedouin citizens and communities in the Naqab/Negev" ], "settlers": [ "The Israeli state, military, land authorities, and planning institutions" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "mena_negev_bedouin_hrw", "qc_negev_ohchr" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Siyag concentration area", "lon": 34.95, "lat": 31.25 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Western and northwestern Negev communities", "lon": 34.55, "lat": 31.2, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin", "routeStream": "bedouin_removal" } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "ca-imperial-russian-colonization-crimea", "name": "Imperial Russian annexation, Tatar dispossession, and settler colonization of Crimea", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1783–1917", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 160, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1783, "end": 1917 } ], "story": "After annexing the Crimean Khanate, imperial authorities confiscated and redistributed land, encouraged non-Tatar settlement, and presided over repeated waves of Crimean Tatar emigration, especially after the Crimean War.", "displaced": [ "Crimean Tatars subjected to land loss, coercive administration, and successive mass emigrations" ], "settlers": [ "The Russian imperial state", "Russian, Ukrainian, German, Greek, Bulgarian, and other colonists" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "crimea", "qc_imperial_crimea" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "lon": 34, "lat": 45.2 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Russian imperial core", "lon": 38, "lat": 55.5 }, { "name": "Soviet interior", "lon": 42, "lat": 54 }, { "name": "Russian Federation", "lon": 38, "lat": 55.5 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "ca-crimean-tatar-deportation-resettlement", "name": "Soviet deportation of Crimean Tatars and replacement settlement", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "1944–1989", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 160, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1944, "end": 1989 } ], "story": "In May 1944 the NKVD deported nearly the entire Crimean Tatar population. Their homes and lands were transferred to incoming settlers, Crimean Tatar institutions and place names were erased, and return was effectively prohibited until the late Soviet period.", "displaced": [ "The Crimean Tatar people, deported collectively to Central Asia and other Soviet regions" ], "settlers": [ "The Soviet government and NKVD", "Post-deportation settlers from Russia and Ukraine" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "crimea_pohl", "ca_crimean_tatar_deportation" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "lon": 34, "lat": 45.2 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Russian imperial core", "lon": 38, "lat": 55.5 }, { "name": "Soviet interior", "lon": 42, "lat": 54 }, { "name": "Russian Federation", "lon": 38, "lat": 55.5 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "ca-russian-occupation-crimea-demographic-transfer", "name": "Occupation-era repression and Russian civilian transfer into Crimea", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "2014–present", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 160, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 2014, "end": 2026 } ], "story": "Since annexing Crimea in 2014, Russia has repressed opponents, displaced some residents, appropriated property, and transferred or facilitated the movement of Russian citizens into occupied territory, conduct international monitors analyze under occupation law.", "displaced": [ "Crimean Tatars and other Ukrainian residents subjected to repression, dispossession, induced departure, or barriers to residence" ], "settlers": [ "The Russian Federation and occupation authorities", "Russian citizens transferred or encouraged to settle in occupied Crimea" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "ohchr_crimea", "qc_occupied_crimea" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "lon": 34, "lat": 45.2 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Russian imperial core", "lon": 38, "lat": 55.5 }, { "name": "Soviet interior", "lon": 42, "lat": 54 }, { "name": "Russian Federation", "lon": 38, "lat": 55.5 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "ca-soviet-chechen-ingush-deportation", "name": "Soviet deportation of Chechens and Ingush and settler redistribution of their territory", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "1944–1957", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 180, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1944, "end": 1957 } ], "story": "The Soviet state deported virtually the entire Chechen and Ingush populations, dissolved their republic, reassigned territory, and resettled homes and farms. Survivors were allowed to return after 1957, creating new conflicts over restored land.", "displaced": [ "Chechen and Ingush peoples deported collectively to Central Asia" ], "settlers": [ "The Soviet government and NKVD", "Settlers and neighboring administrative units receiving confiscated land" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "eu_soviet_deportations_smith", "qc_chechen_ingush" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "lon": 45, "lat": 43.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Soviet state", "lon": 37.6, "lat": 55.7 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "mena-jewish-departure-iraq", "name": "Denaturalization, property sequestration, and the departure of Iraq's Jews", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "denaturalization, property sequestration, and refugee migration", "affectedLabel": "Displaced / departing", "actorLabel": "Actors / movers", "dates": "1950–1951", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 170, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraFocus": "origin", "periods": [ { "start": 1950, "end": 1951 } ], "story": "Iraq's 1950 denaturalization law allowed Jews to depart only after surrendering citizenship; a 1951 measure froze the property of those registered to leave. Antisemitic repression and insecurity, Zionist organizing and Israeli airlift operations, and the legal destruction of return options together turned emigration into mass, largely irreversible displacement.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: Scholars disagree about the relative weight of Iraqi persecution, Zionist recruitment, economic change, and the still-disputed Baghdad bombings. The citizenship and property laws—and the resulting destruction of the community—do not depend on resolving that controversy.", "displaced": [ "Iraqi Jews who surrendered citizenship, lost or sold property under duress, and left a community more than two millennia old" ], "settlers": [ "Iraqi monarchy, parliament, and security services", "Zionist underground, Jewish Agency, and Israeli airlift organizers", "Iraqi Jewish households leaving under radically narrowed choices" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: denaturalization, property sequestration, and refugee migration. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "mena_iraq_saleh_undesirables", "mena_iraq_gat_exodus", "mena_jewish_exodus", "roumani_2003" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Israel", "lon": 34.82, "lat": 32.08 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Baghdad and Basra", "lon": 44.37, "lat": 33.31 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "mena-jewish-departure-yemen-aden", "name": "The mass departure of Yemenite and Adeni Jews", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "pogrom-driven and organized refugee migration", "affectedLabel": "Displaced / departing", "actorLabel": "Actors / movers", "dates": "1947–1950", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 180, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraFocus": "origin", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1947, "end": 1950 } ], "story": "Anti-Jewish violence in Aden, insecurity and changing rule in Yemen, religious and Zionist hopes, and an organized Israeli–JDC airlift converged in a rapid mass departure. Families sold or abandoned property, crossed dangerous routes to Aden, and endured a badly managed transit in which hundreds died before more than 40,000 reached Israel.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: This was neither a simple state expulsion nor a frictionless rescue. The operation joined persecution, aspiration, negotiated permission, institutional recruitment, catastrophic logistics, and choices made under severe constraint.", "displaced": [ "Yemenite and Adeni Jews exposed to anti-Jewish violence, hazardous transit, property loss, camp deprivation, and permanent uprooting" ], "settlers": [ "Yemeni rulers and British authorities in Aden", "Jewish Agency, Israeli government, and Joint Distribution Committee organizers", "Yemenite and Adeni Jewish families undertaking the journey" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: pogrom-driven and organized refugee migration. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "mena_yemen_magic_carpet", "roumani_2003" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Israel", "lon": 34.82, "lat": 32.08 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Sana'a and Yemen", "lon": 44.21, "lat": 15.37 }, { "name": "Aden and southern Yemen", "lon": 45.03, "lat": 13.07 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "mena-jewish-departure-morocco", "name": "Multiwave Jewish emigration from Morocco", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "multiwave emigration under insecurity, restriction, and organized recruitment", "affectedLabel": "Displaced / departing", "actorLabel": "Actors / movers", "dates": "1948–1973", "extent": "continental", "viewWidth": 390, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraFocus": "origin", "periods": [ { "start": 1948, "end": 1973 } ], "story": "Moroccan Jews left in several waves: amid violence and uncertainty after 1948, through clandestine routes during periods of restriction, under negotiated mass emigration in 1961–64, and after renewed regional crises in 1967 and 1973. Many went to Israel, while major communities also formed in France and Canada.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: Morocco did not carry out one nationwide expulsion. Monarchical protection, social insecurity, decolonization, Zionist recruitment, family strategy, and alternating restriction and permission all shaped the departures.", "displaced": [ "Moroccan Jewish communities diminished by insecurity, temporary emigration bans, clandestine departure, and repeated mass-migration waves" ], "settlers": [ "French protectorate and independent Moroccan authorities", "Zionist, Mossad, and HIAS migration networks", "Moroccan Jewish households choosing among constrained destinations" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: multiwave emigration under insecurity, restriction, and organized recruitment. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "mena_north_africa_laskier", "mena_north_africa_emancipation", "mena_jewish_exodus" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Israel", "lon": 34.82, "lat": 32.08 }, { "name": "Marseille / France", "lon": 5.38, "lat": 43.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Casablanca and Morocco", "lon": -7.59, "lat": 33.56 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "mena-jewish-departure-algeria", "name": "Decolonization and the exodus of Algeria's Jews", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "decolonization exodus, violence, and citizenship rupture", "affectedLabel": "Displaced / departing", "actorLabel": "Actors / movers", "dates": "1961–1963", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 100, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraFocus": "origin", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1961, "end": 1963 } ], "story": "Most Algerian Jews held French citizenship under a colonial order that separated them legally from the Muslim majority. As the war of independence ended in violence and French rule collapsed, nearly the whole community departed—primarily to France—with the broader repatriate exodus.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: The movement was not a single expulsion by independent Algeria. Colonial citizenship, wartime fear, violence by several armed actors, identification with France, and uncertainty about the postcolonial state must remain visible together.", "displaced": [ "Algerian Jews uprooted during the violent collapse of French Algeria and the transfer of most of the community to France" ], "settlers": [ "French colonial and repatriation institutions", "Algerian nationalist and European settler combatants", "Algerian Jewish families departing with the wider repatriate exodus" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: decolonization exodus, violence, and citizenship rupture. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "mena_north_africa_laskier", "mena_north_africa_emancipation" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Marseille / France", "lon": 5.38, "lat": 43.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Algiers and Algeria", "lon": 3.034, "lat": 36.692 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "mena-jewish-departure-tunisia", "name": "Decolonization-era Jewish emigration from Tunisia", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "decolonization-era emigration under insecurity and institutional contraction", "affectedLabel": "Displaced / departing", "actorLabel": "Actors / movers", "dates": "1956–1967", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 260, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraFocus": "origin", "periods": [ { "start": 1956, "end": 1967 } ], "story": "Most Tunisian Jews left between independence and the aftermath of the 1967 war. Decolonization altered schools, courts, commerce, and citizenship expectations; the Bizerte crisis and anti-Jewish violence in 1967 accelerated departures to France and Israel.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: The exodus cannot be described as one formal expulsion. It joined postcolonial reform, economic pressure, regional conflict, fear, family networks, and competing French and Zionist destinations.", "displaced": [ "Tunisian Jewish communities diminished by insecurity, economic and institutional change, regional crisis, and migration" ], "settlers": [ "Tunisian state and decolonizing institutions", "French and Israeli migration networks", "Tunisian Jewish households leaving in successive waves" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: decolonization-era emigration under insecurity and institutional contraction. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "mena_north_africa_laskier", "mena_north_africa_emancipation" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Israel", "lon": 34.82, "lat": 32.08 }, { "name": "Marseille / France", "lon": 5.38, "lat": 43.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Tunis and Tunisia", "lon": 10.18, "lat": 36.81 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "mena-jewish-departure-syria", "name": "Restriction, clandestine flight, and the delayed departure of Syria's Jews", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "travel restriction, property constraint, clandestine flight, and delayed exodus", "affectedLabel": "Displaced / departing", "actorLabel": "Actors / movers", "dates": "1948–1994", "extent": "continental", "viewWidth": 440, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraFocus": "origin", "periods": [ { "start": 1948, "end": 1994 } ], "story": "After 1948, Syrian Jews faced surveillance and severe limits on travel and property, producing dangerous clandestine flight while much of the community remained effectively trapped. In 1992 the government lifted major travel and property restrictions; most of the remaining community then left, especially for the United States and Israel.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: The long duration matters: this was not a single 1948 expulsion, but a sequence of coercive immobility, clandestine escape, diplomatic pressure, and finally legally permitted departure.", "displaced": [ "Syrian Jews subjected to surveillance and restrictions on travel, residence, employment, and disposal of property" ], "settlers": [ "Syrian governments and security services", "Clandestine migration and family networks", "Syrian Jewish households leaving after restrictions were lifted" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: travel restriction, property constraint, clandestine flight, and delayed exodus. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "mena_syria_travel_1992", "roumani_2003" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Israel", "lon": 34.82, "lat": 32.08 }, { "name": "New York / United States", "lon": -74.0101, "lat": 40.7164 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Damascus and Aleppo", "lon": 36.29, "lat": 33.51 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "mena-jewish-departure-lebanon", "name": "Civil-war displacement and the collapse of Lebanon's Jewish community", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "civil-war displacement and communal collapse", "affectedLabel": "Displaced / departing", "actorLabel": "Actors / movers", "dates": "1958–1990", "extent": "continental", "viewWidth": 420, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraFocus": "origin", "periods": [ { "start": 1958, "end": 1990 } ], "story": "Lebanon's Jewish population increased after 1948 as Syrian Jews sought refuge there. Departures began amid the 1958 crisis and regional conflict, then accelerated during the prolonged civil war, kidnappings, and the 1982 Israeli invasion until organized communal life was nearly extinguished.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: Lebanon should not be folded into a narrative of immediate Arab-state expulsion after 1948. Its chronology is one of initial refuge followed by conflict-driven dispersal across several later crises.", "displaced": [ "Lebanese Jews displaced by recurring conflict, insecurity, kidnapping, and the destruction of communal life" ], "settlers": [ "Lebanese and regional armed factions", "Syrian and Israeli military forces", "Lebanese Jewish families using diaspora and refugee networks" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: civil-war displacement and communal collapse. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "mena_lebanon_schulze", "roumani_2003" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Paris / France", "lon": 2.35, "lat": 48.86 }, { "name": "Montreal / Canada", "lon": -73.5408, "lat": 45.4756 }, { "name": "Israel", "lon": 34.82, "lat": 32.08 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Beirut and Lebanon", "lon": 35.5202, "lat": 33.8803 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "mena-jewish-departure-iran", "name": "Revolution-driven Jewish departure from Iran", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "revolution-driven refugee and diaspora migration", "affectedLabel": "Displaced / departing", "actorLabel": "Actors / movers", "dates": "1979–c. 2000", "extent": "continental", "viewWidth": 560, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraFocus": "origin", "periods": [ { "start": 1979, "end": 2000 } ], "story": "Iran was a regional anomaly: Jewish integration expanded during much of the mid-twentieth century, and the major departure came after the 1979 revolution. Execution, revolutionary insecurity, the Iran–Iraq war, and uncertainty drove most of the community abroad—especially to the United States, Europe, and Israel—while a legally recognized Jewish minority remained in Iran.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: There was no formal mass expulsion, and Jews participated in the revolution as well as fled its aftermath. This belongs in the atlas as revolution-driven displacement and diaspora formation, not as an Arab-state 1948 case.", "displaced": [ "Iranian Jews leaving amid executions, revolutionary insecurity, war, and uncertainty while a recognized Jewish minority remained" ], "settlers": [ "Islamic Republic institutions and revolutionary courts", "Iranian Jewish family and diaspora networks", "Refugee and migration institutions in the United States, Europe, and Israel" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: revolution-driven refugee and diaspora migration. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "mena_iran_sternfeld", "roumani_2003" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Los Angeles / United States", "lon": -118.24, "lat": 34.05 }, { "name": "Israel", "lon": 34.82, "lat": 32.08 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Tehran and Iran", "lon": 51.39, "lat": 35.69 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added after mechanism-first review", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "modern-chinese-exodus-to-taiwan", "name": "Chinese Civil War exodus to Taiwan and incoming regime settlement", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1945–1955", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 160, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1945, "end": 1955 } ], "story": "Civil-war defeat brought the Nationalist government, armed forces, and a large mainland population to Taiwan, where an incoming authoritarian regime ruled the existing population; the case combines refugee movement with state-bearing settlement and requires careful framing.", "displaced": [ "Mainland Chinese refugees and Taiwan residents subjected to incoming military government, property requisition, and political repression" ], "settlers": [ "Republic of China government, armed forces, officials, and mainland refugee population" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "modern_taiwan_exodus", "qc_taiwan_exiles" ], "targets": [ { "name": "East Asia", "lon": 121, "lat": 24 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Mainland China", "lon": 118, "lat": 31 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "modern-acadian-deportation-planter-replacement", "name": "Acadian deportation and New England Planter replacement", "region": "North America", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1755–1764", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 220, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1755, "end": 1764 } ], "story": "British authorities deported Acadian communities, broke up families, confiscated land and livestock, and then promoted settlement by New England Planters on vacated farms.", "displaced": [ "Acadian communities deported from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island" ], "settlers": [ "British imperial and Nova Scotian authorities", "New England Planter settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "modern_acadian_deportation", "qc_acadian_planters" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Northeastern North America", "lon": -65, "lat": 46 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "New England Planter colonies", "lon": -71.06, "lat": 42.36 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "modern-panama-canal-zone-removals", "name": "Panama Canal Zone community removals", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "development/conservation displacement", "dates": "1904–1914", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 160, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1904, "end": 1914 } ], "story": "Canal construction and the creation of the Canal Zone submerged or cleared settlements and reorganized residence by race, citizenship, labor status, and United States administrative control.", "displaced": [ "Panamanian, Afro-Caribbean, and other residents removed from canal, reservoir, and segregated administrative zones" ], "settlers": [ "United States Canal Zone government and construction authorities" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: development/conservation displacement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "modern_panama_canal_displacement", "qc_panama_erased" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Panama Canal Zone communities and project lands", "lon": -79.63, "lat": 9.08 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "United States", "lon": -90, "lat": 38 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "modern-moriori-invasion-enslavement-land-seizure", "name": "Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama invasion and dispossession of Moriori", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1835–1863", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 90, "markerScale": 0.5, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1835, "end": 1863 } ], "story": "Incoming iwi seized the Chatham Islands, killed and enslaved Moriori, imposed restrictions that accelerated demographic collapse, and later received most land through the Native Land Court before redress.", "displaced": [ "Moriori people killed, enslaved, prohibited from marrying, and dispossessed of land" ], "settlers": [ "Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama migrants from mainland Aotearoa" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "modern_moriori_settlement", "qc_moriori_deed", "v7_moriori_teara_richards_chatham" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Rēkohu / Chatham Island", "lon": -176.48, "lat": -43.89 }, { "name": "Rangiauria / Pitt Island", "lon": -176.22, "lat": -44.28 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Port Nicholson / Wellington", "lon": 174.78, "lat": -41.29 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "caribbean-french-plantation-colonies", "name": "French Caribbean settler plantations, Indigenous dispossession, and slavery", "region": "Caribbean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1625–1848", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 210, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 5, "routeAnchors": [ { "label": "La Rochelle and the French Atlantic ports", "lon": -1.15, "lat": 46.16, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "french_settler_and_commercial_route" }, { "label": "Gorée / Senegambia", "lon": -17.44, "lat": 14.67, "use": "forced_route_origin", "stream": "enslaved_african_route" }, { "label": "Ouidah / Bight of Benin", "lon": 2.09, "lat": 6.36, "use": "forced_route_origin", "stream": "enslaved_african_route" } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1625, "end": 1848 } ], "story": "French settlement displaced Indigenous island populations and built sugar colonies in which enslaved Africans formed most of the population. Abolition ended legal slavery in 1848 but colonial policing and land concentration preserved plantation power.", "displaced": [ "Kalinago and other Indigenous island communities expelled, confined, or killed", "Enslaved Africans transported into plantation labor" ], "settlers": [ "French crown and colonial administrations", "European settlers, plantation owners, and militias" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "caribbean_french_plantation", "qc_french_caribbean" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Guadeloupe", "lon": -61.7, "lat": 16.15 }, { "name": "Martinique", "lon": -61.02, "lat": 14.65 }, { "name": "Dominica", "lon": -61.37, "lat": 15.42 }, { "name": "Saint Lucia", "lon": -60.98, "lat": 13.9 }, { "name": "Grenada", "lon": -61.68, "lat": 12.12 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "La Rochelle and the French Atlantic ports", "lon": -1.15, "lat": 46.16, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "french_settler_and_commercial_route" }, { "name": "Gorée / Senegambia", "lon": -17.44, "lat": 14.67, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin", "routeStream": "enslaved_african_route" }, { "name": "Ouidah / Bight of Benin", "lon": 2.09, "lat": 6.36, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin", "routeStream": "enslaved_african_route" } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "caribbean-dutch-antilles-colonization-slavery", "name": "Dutch Caribbean conquest, settlement, and slavery", "region": "Caribbean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1634–1863", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 42, "viewPadding": 6, "markerScale": 0.42, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 10, "periods": [ { "start": 1634, "end": 1863 } ], "story": "Dutch conquest established company government and settler communities on Aruba, Curaçao, Bonaire, Sint Maarten, Saba, and Sint Eustatius, while enslaved Africans became central to island society and commerce. The six island settings had substantially different local histories and are mapped separately rather than collapsed into one regional point.", "displaced": [ "Indigenous residents subjected to conquest and demographic marginalization", "Enslaved Africans transported to the islands and through Curaçao's slave entrepôt" ], "settlers": [ "Dutch West India Company and colonial governments", "Dutch and Sephardic Jewish settlers and slaveholders" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "caribbean_dutch_colonies", "qc_dutch_caribbean" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Aruba", "lon": -69.97, "lat": 12.52 }, { "name": "Curaçao", "lon": -68.99, "lat": 12.17 }, { "name": "Bonaire", "lon": -68.25, "lat": 12.18 }, { "name": "Saba", "lon": -63.24, "lat": 17.63 }, { "name": "Sint Eustatius", "lon": -62.97, "lat": 17.49 }, { "name": "Sint Maarten", "lon": -63.05, "lat": 18.04 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Netherlands", "lon": 5.3, "lat": 52 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "pacific-german-samoa-plantation-labor", "name": "German Samoa plantation colonization and coerced imported labor", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "enslavement/labor removal", "dates": "1867–1914", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 48, "viewPadding": 15, "markerScale": 0.45, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1867, "end": 1914 } ], "story": "European plantations acquired Samoan land and used thousands of imported Pacific and Chinese workers under highly restrictive contracts. Samoan customary society survived, so this was dispossessive plantation colonization without wholesale population replacement.", "displaced": [ "Samoans facing plantation land alienation", "Gilbertese, New Hebridean, New Guinean, Solomon Islander, Caroline Islander, and Chinese workers recruited under coercive colonial regimes" ], "settlers": [ "German plantation companies, settlers, and colonial government" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: enslavement/labor removal. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "pacific_samoa_plantation_labor", "qc_samoa_colonial" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Savaiʻi", "lon": -172.45, "lat": -13.63 }, { "name": "Upolu", "lon": -171.75, "lat": -13.9 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Germany", "lon": 10, "lat": 51 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "pacific-sokehs-deportation-pohnpei", "name": "German deportation of the Sokehs from Pohnpei", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "expulsion/deportation/ethnic cleansing", "dates": "1910–1917; later returns reported through 1927", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 44, "viewPadding": 4, "markerScale": 0.45, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 10, "reachFitCap": 320, "periods": [ { "start": 1910, "end": 1917, "yearLabel": "1910–1917; later returns reported through 1927" } ], "story": "German authorities deported the Sokehs community during and after the rebellion's suppression, sending exiles via Yap to Palau and confiscating their land. Captured rebels were executed, and more than one hundred men were forced to work in Angaur's phosphate mines. Other islanders were resettled on Sokehs land. Japanese authorities permitted return in 1917. Levy reports that most of the Sokehs rebels returned that year, lodging with family while the incoming communities remained; later accounts report returns through 1927.", "displaced": [ "The Sokehs people deported and deprived of their land" ], "settlers": [ "German colonial authorities organized confiscation and resettlement", "Outer-island settlers, including storm-displaced Mortlockese, were placed on Sokehs land" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: expulsion/deportation/ethnic cleansing. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "pacific_sokehs_deportation", "qc_sokehs_bundesarchiv", "sokehs_levy_2018", "sokehs_nagaoka_plan_2017", "sokehs_morlang_girschner_paper", "sokehs_reichskolonialamt_1909_10", "sokehs_reichskolonialamt_1910_11", "sokehs_reichskolonialamt_1911_12", "sokehs_sack_1997" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Babeldaob, Palau (place of exile)", "lon": 134.55, "lat": 7.53 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Sokehs Island, Pohnpei", "lon": 158.14, "lat": 6.97 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously only adjacent", "auditConfidence": "high", "contested": "Morlang reports fifteen executions after seventeen men faced death sentences; two men already on Yap were never executed. The 1910/11 official narrative instead reports seventeen sentenced on 23 February and executed the next day; its annual penal table records fifteen death sentences, not executions. Morlang places the shooting on 23 February, while Nagaoka and the official narrative give 24 February; Sack records further disagreement. Morlang reports about fifty deaths by early 1913, not a complete exile mortality total. The reported later returns through 1927 are supported by Levy and Nagaoka, whose cited original book pages remain unread. These accounts do not establish recovery of every family's former land." }, { "id": "south-atlantic-british-falklands-colonization", "name": "British reoccupation and colonization of the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1833–1843", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 150, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1833, "end": 1843 } ], "story": "Britain forced the Argentine garrison and officials to withdraw in 1833, retained or allowed some civilian workers to remain, and then built a permanent British colonial population. This was political displacement and settler colonization, not removal of every prior inhabitant.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: Sovereignty remains disputed. Inclusion records population and institutional change without adjudicating title or treating present islanders as illegitimate residents.", "displaced": [ "Argentine garrison members and officials forced to withdraw", "Civilians whose political order was displaced, though several gauchos and other residents remained" ], "settlers": [ "The British state, Royal Navy, colonial officials, and incoming settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "south_atlantic_falklands_colonization", "qc_falklands_cambridge" ], "targets": [ { "name": "South Atlantic", "lon": -59, "lat": -51.7 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Britain", "lon": -1.5, "lat": 52 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "indian-ocean-maldives-gan-base-relocation", "name": "Removal of Gan and Feydhoo islanders for British bases", "region": "Indian Ocean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "development/conservation displacement", "dates": "1941–1976", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 2, "viewPadding": 0.2, "markerScale": 0.42, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1941, "end": 1976 } ], "story": "British construction at Gan first cleared land for wartime use and later expanded into RAF Gan. Residents of Gan and neighboring Feydhoo were relocated, with the two governments negotiating housing and compensation on resettlement islands. The process was military-base displacement, not settler replacement.", "displaced": [ "Gan and Feydhoo residents transferred to neighboring islands for naval, air, and communications facilities" ], "settlers": [ "British military authorities", "Maldivian government" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: development/conservation displacement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "indian_ocean_maldives_gan_hansard", "indian_ocean_maldives_relocation_study" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Feydhoo (Gan islanders resettled)", "lon": 73.135, "lat": -0.682 }, { "name": "Maradhoo-Feydhoo (Feydhoo islanders resettled)", "lon": 73.1258, "lat": -0.6736 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Gan (place of removal)", "lon": 73.1553, "lat": -0.6944 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "europe-norse-settlement-faroes", "name": "Norse settlement of the Faroe Islands and the unresolved fate of earlier occupants", "region": "Europe", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 750–950 CE", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 80, "viewPadding": 22, "markerScale": 0.62, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 750, "end": 950 } ], "story": "Sedimentary DNA and livestock biomarkers establish human occupation three to four centuries before large-scale Norse settlement. Norse and Norse-Gaelic settlers created the enduring Faroese population, but the evidence does not show whether earlier occupants were killed, expelled, absorbed, or had already left.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: The pre-Norse occupants' identity, population size, continuity, and fate are unknown. This is a colonization candidate with an explicit uncertainty flag, not evidence of a demonstrated displacement event.", "displaced": [ "Earlier inhabitants of unknown identity whose presence is archaeologically established but whose number and fate are unknown" ], "settlers": [ "Norse and Norse-Gaelic settlers, including people arriving from Norway and the British Isles" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "eu_faroe_early_occupation_dna", "eu_faroe_population_history" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Streymoy, Faroe Islands", "lon": -6.97, "lat": 62.15 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Western Norway", "lon": 6.2, "lat": 61 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — previously absent", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "us-las-humanas-famine-raid-abandonment", "name": "Famine, raid, and abandonment of Las Humanas", "region": "North America", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "mixed-cause removal without durable replacement", "affectedLabel": "Dead / dispersed residents", "actorLabel": "Interacting pressures", "dates": "1667–1672", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 5.8, "viewPadding": 0.75, "zoomFloor": 14, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraFocus": "origin", "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Upper Rio Grande / central New Mexico context", "lon": -106.55, "lat": 35.35 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1667, "end": 1672, "label": "Linked internal sequence", "note": "One playback stop; dated internal sequence: 1667–1669: Food crisis and mortality; 1670–1672: Attack, mission closure, and dispersal.", "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1667, "end": 1669, "label": "Food crisis and mortality", "note": "Crop failure and severe shortage struck a community already embedded in Spanish tribute and mission labor structures. A contemporary report attributed more than 450 deaths at Las Humanas to starvation; the proportion of the community is unknown.", "sequenceStep": 1 }, { "start": 1670, "end": 1672, "label": "Attack, mission closure, and dispersal", "note": "An Apache attack damaged the mission in September 1670. The mission probably closed in 1671, and surviving residents moved through Abó toward Piro-speaking Rio Grande communities, probably Isleta.", "sequenceStep": 2 } ], "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Crop failure and food shortage struck Las Humanas from 1667. A contemporary Franciscan report attributed more than 450 deaths there to starvation in 1668, while the later NPS history describes the total more cautiously as perhaps 450. An Apache attack seriously damaged the mission in September 1670. The Franciscans probably closed it in 1671, and surviving residents moved through Abó toward Piro-speaking Rio Grande missions, probably Isleta, by 1672. Las Humanas was not durably replaced by an incoming community and remained abandoned until reoccupation of the area after 1800.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: The death report, later population statements, and raid losses do not supply compatible denominators and cannot yield a mortality share or displacement total. Drought, famine, disease, Spanish extraction and consolidation, and Apache attack interacted. The evidence does not show a single-cause Apache conquest or replacement settlement.", "displaced": [ "Residents of Las Humanas / Gran Quivira" ], "settlers": [ "Drought, crop failure, famine, and disease", "Spanish tribute, labor demands, mission institutions, and strategic consolidation", "Apache attackers in the September 1670 raid" ], "sources": [ "sw_salinas_nps_antiquities", "sw_salinas_ivey_hsr", "sw_salinas_vivian_1964" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Piro communities on the Rio Grande, probably Isleta", "lon": -106.68, "lat": 34.91 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Las Humanas / Gran Quivira", "lon": -106.1, "lat": 34.26 } ], "evidence": "National Park Service historical synthesis of Franciscan records, mission history, and settlement archaeology", "auditStatus": "bounded event added after source review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "us-quarai-chilili-to-tajique-relocation", "name": "Relocation of Quarai and Chililí residents to Tajique", "region": "North America", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "mixed-cause removal without durable replacement", "affectedLabel": "Relocated residents", "actorLabel": "Consolidation / insecurity", "dates": "1676–1677", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 5, "viewPadding": 0.7, "zoomFloor": 14, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraFocus": "origin", "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Upper Rio Grande / central New Mexico context", "lon": -106.55, "lat": 35.35 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1676, "end": 1677, "label": "Movement from Quarai and Chililí to Tajique", "note": "Residents consolidated at Tajique while the two source communities were given up. The source sites remained without durable successor settlement." } ], "story": "Between late 1676 and early 1677 the Christian populations of Quarai and Chililí moved to Tajique amid famine, insecurity, and Spanish-Franciscan consolidation. Quarai residents carried a favored missionary's remains with them. Quarai and Chililí were not durably replaced by incoming communities. Tajique then failed as a destination, was abandoned shortly before the end of 1677, and was reoccupied in early 1678 by more than two hundred Indigenous families and a small garrison, remaining occupied at least through mid-1679. The Salinas district was therefore not continuously empty after 1678.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: The documented movement concerns Quarai and Chililí; Tajique's later abandonment and reoccupation are separate destination phases. Its reoccupation rules out both continuous district-wide vacancy and an incoming successor settlement at the source sites.", "displaced": [ "Residents of Quarai and Chililí" ], "settlers": [ "Spanish and Franciscan strategic consolidation", "Famine, regional insecurity, and repeated raiding" ], "sources": [ "sw_salinas_nps_quarai", "sw_salinas_ivey_hsr" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Tajique destination community", "lon": -106.32, "lat": 34.76 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Quarai", "lon": -106.17, "lat": 34.55 }, { "name": "Chililí", "lon": -106.23, "lat": 34.13 } ], "evidence": "National Park Service historic-structures report with archival notes and settlement chronology", "auditStatus": "bounded event added after source review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "us-sobaipuri-relocation-1762", "name": "Spanish-ordered relocation of San Pedro Sobaipuri communities", "region": "North America", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "state-ordered partial relocation and mission concentration", "affectedLabel": "Relocated people", "actorLabel": "Order / pressure", "dates": "December 1761–March 1762", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 5.8, "viewPadding": 0.75, "zoomFloor": 16, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraFocus": "origin", "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Tucson and Arizona–Sonora context", "lon": -111, "lat": 32.3 }, { "name": "Northern Sonora context", "lon": -110.8, "lat": 30.8 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1761, "end": 1762, "label": "Decision, order, and partial relocation", "note": "The policy decision and order date to early December 1761. By March 1762 an officer counted 250 at Tucson while reporting a wider tally of about 400; thirty families are separately documented at Soamca. The counts remain distinct and total clearance is not inferred." } ], "story": "In early December 1761 Spanish officials decided to move Sobaipuri-O'odham residents from San Pedro communities to reinforce Soamca, Guevavi, and Bac, consolidate frontier defense, and bring more people under mission control. Captain Francisco Elías executed the order by March 1762 amid sustained Apache pressure. His report counted 250 people settled or enumerated at Tucson and said missionary and Indigenous officials had reported about 400; people not enumerated were described as moving among nearby towns. Thirty families are separately documented at Soamca, and activity is documented at Sonoita. These figures and places do not form one complete partition and are not combined. The order and substantial partial relocation are established; complete valley abandonment is not.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: Sayre and Spicer describe an emptied lower San Pedro, while Seymour's archaeological interpretation reports O'odham occupations after 1762. The evidence supports substantial outward movement but leaves complete abandonment, durable exclusion, and Apache replacement unresolved. Soamca, Guevavi, and Bac were intended destinations; Tucson and Soamca are directly documented execution outcomes, while Sonoita and surrounding towns appear in the wider movement record. Spanish compulsion is the proximate mechanism; Apache pressure is an interacting condition.", "displaced": [ "The documented subset of Sobaipuri-O'odham residents ordered from San Pedro Valley communities" ], "settlers": [ "Governor José Tienda de Cuervo and Spanish frontier officers", "Mission and presidio institutions seeking population, labor, and defense", "Apache wartime pressure as the background security condition" ], "sources": [ "sw_sobaipuri_nps_pfefferkorn", "sw_sobaipuri_dobyns_tucson", "sw_sobaipuri_sayre_2011", "sw_sobaipuri_seymour_dating", "sw_sobaipuri_spicer_cycles" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Tucson (documented enumeration)", "lon": -110.97, "lat": 32.22 }, { "name": "Soamca (documented families)", "lon": -110.88, "lat": 31.41 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "San Pedro Valley Sobaipuri villages", "lon": -110.25, "lat": 31.9 } ], "evidence": "National Park Service archival synthesis, a translated 1762 report, and specialist archaeological review", "auditStatus": "bounded event added after source review", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "prehistory-neolithic-aegean-balkans", "name": "Anatolian farmer settlement of the Aegean and Balkans", "region": "Europe", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 6500–5500 BCE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -6500, "end": -5500 } ], "story": "Farming populations closely related to northwestern Anatolian groups entered the Aegean and Balkans and established durable village societies. Ancient DNA supports substantial demic movement, while the local balance of replacement, admixture, and retreat by foragers varied.", "displaced": [ "Mesolithic foragers of the Aegean and Balkan regions, variably absorbed, displaced, or demographically marginalized" ], "settlers": [ "Anatolian-descended Neolithic farming communities crossing through the Aegean" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "neolithic_lazaridis", "neolithic_brace" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Southeastern Europe", "lon": 22, "lat": 43 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Central Anatolia", "lon": 32.8, "lat": 37.7 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "prehistory-neolithic-danubian-lbk", "name": "Danubian and Linear Pottery farmer expansion into central Europe", "region": "Europe", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 5700–4900 BCE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -5700, "end": -4900 } ], "story": "Farming villages expanded rapidly from the middle Danube through the loess plains of central Europe. The initial migrant ancestry was strongly Anatolian-farmer-derived, followed by renewed forager admixture rather than one instantaneous total replacement.", "displaced": [ "Central European Mesolithic foragers, initially marginalized and later partly absorbed" ], "settlers": [ "Starčevo-Körös and Linear Pottery farming communities of predominantly Anatolian farmer ancestry" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "neolithic_lazaridis", "neolithic_brace" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Central Europe", "lon": 14, "lat": 50 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Central Anatolia", "lon": 32.8, "lat": 37.7 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "prehistory-neolithic-mediterranean-cardial", "name": "Mediterranean Cardial farmer expansion", "region": "Europe", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 6000–4500 BCE", "extent": "continental", "viewWidth": 430, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -6000, "end": -4500 } ], "story": "Seaborne and coastwise farming groups moved through the Adriatic and western Mediterranean, establishing new settlements and transforming land use. Ancient DNA shows migrant-driven expansion with locally variable forager survival and admixture.", "displaced": [ "Mesolithic coastal and interior foragers of the central and western Mediterranean" ], "settlers": [ "Maritime Neolithic farming communities of predominantly Anatolian farmer ancestry" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "neolithic_lazaridis", "neolithic_brace" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Mediterranean Europe", "lon": 12, "lat": 42 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Central Anatolia", "lon": 32.8, "lat": 37.7 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "prehistory-neolithic-britain-ireland-turnover", "name": "Neolithic farmer settlement and ancestry turnover in Britain and Ireland", "region": "Europe", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 4200–3500 BCE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -4200, "end": -3500 } ], "story": "Neolithic migrants crossed from continental Europe and replaced most sampled Mesolithic ancestry in Britain and Ireland within a comparatively short interval. The genetic turnover is clear even though direct violence, disease, demographic imbalance, and social incorporation cannot be apportioned precisely.", "displaced": [ "Britain and Ireland's Mesolithic forager populations" ], "settlers": [ "Continental Neolithic farmers whose ancestry derived through Mediterranean and Atlantic routes" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "neolithic_brace", "neolithic_lazaridis" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Northwestern Europe", "lon": -2, "lat": 53 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Central Anatolia", "lon": 32.8, "lat": 37.7 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "prehistory-yamnaya-lower-danube-expansion", "name": "Yamnaya movement into the lower Danube and Carpathian Basin", "region": "Europe", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 3300–2600 BCE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 330, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -3300, "end": -2600 } ], "story": "Steppe pastoralist groups entered the lower Danube and Carpathian Basin, adding a major new ancestry component and new burial and mobility systems. The regional process preceded and helped generate later steppe-derived populations farther west.", "displaced": [ "Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic farming populations of the lower Danube and Carpathian Basin" ], "settlers": [ "Pontic-Caspian steppe pastoralists associated with Yamnaya material traditions" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "steppe_haak", "steppe_olalde" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Eastern and Southeastern Europe", "lon": 24, "lat": 47 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Pontic-Caspian steppe", "lon": 46, "lat": 48 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "prehistory-corded-ware-central-northern-europe", "name": "Corded Ware population formation across central and northern Europe", "region": "Europe", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 2900–2300 BCE", "extent": "continental", "viewWidth": 390, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -2900, "end": -2300 } ], "story": "Communities with large steppe-derived ancestry spread across central and northern Europe and mixed with local farmers. The scale of ancestry change supports demographic expansion, while a single uniform mechanism of violent displacement cannot be assumed across the whole zone.", "displaced": [ "Late Neolithic farming populations, variably replaced and absorbed" ], "settlers": [ "Steppe-derived and locally admixed communities associated with Corded Ware" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "steppe_haak", "steppe_olalde" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Central and Northern Europe", "lon": 16.8367, "lat": 54.6305 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Pontic-Caspian steppe", "lon": 46, "lat": 48 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "prehistory-beaker-britain-ancestry-turnover", "name": "Bell Beaker migration and ancestry turnover in Britain", "region": "Europe", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 2500–1800 BCE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -2500, "end": -1800 } ], "story": "After about 2500 BCE, migrants associated with Bell Beaker material culture replaced most sampled Neolithic ancestry in Britain. This island-specific turnover is one of the clearest demographic changes in the larger steppe-ancestry story and must not be mapped as a direct Yamnaya march.", "displaced": [ "Britain's established Neolithic farmer-descended population" ], "settlers": [ "Continental Bell Beaker-associated migrants with substantial steppe ancestry" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "steppe_olalde", "steppe_haak" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Northwestern Europe", "lon": -2, "lat": 53 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Pontic-Caspian steppe", "lon": 46, "lat": 48 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "eu-west-slavic-settlement-central-europe", "name": "West Slavic settlement of central Europe", "region": "Europe", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 500–750 CE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 500, "end": 750 } ], "story": "Slavic-speaking populations expanded westward into landscapes reshaped by late Roman and Migration Period movement. Ancient DNA indicates large ancestry change in several northern areas, although continuity and mixture varied by locality.", "displaced": [ "Post-Roman and Germanic-period populations who had remained or moved through the region" ], "settlers": [ "Slavic-speaking farming communities moving into the Elbe, Oder, and upper Danube regions" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "slavic_gretzinger", "slavic_curta" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Central Europe", "lon": 14, "lat": 50 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Middle Dnieper", "lon": 29, "lat": 51 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "eu-east-slavic-expansion-state-formation", "name": "East Slavic expansion and incorporation of forest-zone peoples", "region": "Europe", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 500–1100 CE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 350, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 500, "end": 1100 } ], "story": "Slavic-speaking agricultural communities and later Rus' political networks expanded through eastern Europe's forest and river zones. Language replacement and settlement are clear, but local mechanisms ranged from mixture and tribute to displacement and cannot be shown by one uniform arrow.", "displaced": [ "Baltic, Finnic, and other forest-zone communities variably absorbed, tributized, or displaced" ], "settlers": [ "East Slavic-speaking farming communities and later Rus' polities" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "slavic_gretzinger", "slavic_curta" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Eastern Europe", "lon": 32, "lat": 54 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Middle Dnieper", "lon": 29, "lat": 51 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "eu-south-slavic-balkan-settlement", "name": "South Slavic settlement of the Balkans", "region": "Europe", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 550–800 CE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 550, "end": 800 } ], "story": "Slavic-speaking settlers crossed the Danube and transformed much of the rural Balkans after repeated war and weakening imperial control. Large-scale migration occurred, but surviving and incoming populations mixed extensively and outcomes differed from province to province.", "displaced": [ "Late Roman Balkan populations subjected to warfare, rural settlement change, flight, and later incorporation" ], "settlers": [ "Slavic-speaking groups settling south of the Danube, sometimes in alliance with Avar forces" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "slavic_curta", "slavic_gretzinger" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Southeastern Europe", "lon": 22, "lat": 43 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Middle Dnieper", "lon": 29, "lat": 51 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "med-phoenician-trading-enclaves", "name": "Phoenician trading settlements in the central and western Mediterranean", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "c. 900–650 BCE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 250, "viewPadding": 18, "markerScale": 0.66, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -900, "end": -650 } ], "story": "Levantine settlers established ports and island enclaves across the Mediterranean. Permanent migration and landholding are clear, but many early sites were commercial nodes embedded among local societies; displacement cannot be presumed uniformly.", "displaced": [ "Local coastal communities whose ports and land were incorporated into new enclaves, often through negotiated coexistence rather than documented expulsion" ], "settlers": [ "Levantine seafaring and merchant communities conventionally called Phoenician" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "phoenician_quinn", "phoenician_suarez" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Carthage", "lon": 10.33, "lat": 36.85 }, { "name": "Motya", "lon": 13.1, "lat": 37.87 }, { "name": "Sulky (Sant’Antioco)", "lon": 8.82, "lat": 39.18 }, { "name": "Gadir (Cádiz)", "lon": -6.15, "lat": 36.57 }, { "name": "Lixus", "lon": -6.11, "lat": 35.2 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Tyre and the Levantine coast", "lon": 35.2, "lat": 33.27 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, ancient texts, epigraphy, or genetics as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "med-carthage-north-african-settlement", "name": "Carthaginian settlement and agrarian expansion in North Africa", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "c. 800–146 BCE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -800, "end": -146 } ], "story": "Carthage developed from a colonial settlement into a territorial power with extensive North African agriculture, tribute, and military control. Punic and local populations mixed, while Libyan communities also bore unequal land and fiscal burdens.", "displaced": [ "Libyan and Amazigh communities incorporated into tributary and agrarian systems" ], "settlers": [ "Carthaginian/Punic state, landholders, and settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "phoenician_quinn", "phoenician_suarez" ], "targets": [ { "name": "North Africa", "lon": 8, "lat": 34 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Tyre", "lon": 35.19, "lat": 33.27 }, { "name": "Sidon", "lon": 35.37, "lat": 33.56 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, ancient texts, epigraphy, or genetics as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "med-carthaginian-western-islands-iberia", "name": "Carthaginian territorial colonization in Iberia and the western Mediterranean islands", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "c. 600–201 BCE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 250, "viewPadding": 18, "markerScale": 0.62, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -600, "end": -201 } ], "story": "Carthage expanded its control over strategic islands and southern Iberia through garrisons, colonial towns, alliances, and warfare. The depth of local dispossession varied, so individual theaters require different map treatment.", "displaced": [ "Iberian, Tartessian, Nuragic Sardinian, Sicel, and other local communities subjected to fortified settlement, extraction, and conquest" ], "settlers": [ "Carthaginian state, armies, merchants, and Punic settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "phoenician_quinn", "phoenician_suarez" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Qart Hadasht (Cartagena)", "lon": -1.1, "lat": 37.65 }, { "name": "Carmona", "lon": -5.64, "lat": 37.47 }, { "name": "Iboshim (Ibiza)", "lon": 1.43, "lat": 38.91 }, { "name": "Sulky (Sant’Antioco)", "lon": 8.82, "lat": 39.18 }, { "name": "Tharros", "lon": 8.44, "lat": 39.87 }, { "name": "Motya", "lon": 13.1, "lat": 37.87 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Carthage", "lon": 10.33, "lat": 36.85 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, ancient texts, epigraphy, or genetics as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "med-greek-black-sea-colonies", "name": "Greek settlement around the Black Sea", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "c. 700–450 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 180, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -700, "end": -450 } ], "story": "Greek settlers founded independent ports around the Black Sea and drew nearby land and trade into their economies. Some settlements acquired substantial territory; others remained coastal enclaves dependent on negotiated relationships with local powers.", "displaced": [ "Thracian, Scythian, Colchian, Taurian, and other coastal and hinterland communities" ], "settlers": [ "Settlers from Miletos, Megara, and other Greek poleis" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "greek_colonization", "greek_territory" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Apollonia Pontica", "lon": 27.35, "lat": 42.27 }, { "name": "Istros / Histria", "lon": 28.4, "lat": 44.48 }, { "name": "Olbia Pontica", "lon": 31.55, "lat": 46.77 }, { "name": "Pantikapaion", "lon": 35.87, "lat": 45.12 }, { "name": "Sinope", "lon": 35.03, "lat": 41.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Miletos", "lon": 27.28, "lat": 37.53 }, { "name": "Megara", "lon": 23.34, "lat": 38 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, ancient texts, epigraphy, or genetics as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "med-greek-cyrene-colonization", "name": "Theran Greek colonization of Cyrenaica", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "c. 630–440 BCE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -630, "end": -440 } ], "story": "Settlers from Thera founded Cyrene and expanded into an agrarian city network in eastern Libya. Written and archaeological evidence records both conflict over land and durable interaction with Libyan communities.", "displaced": [ "Libyan communities whose land and political relations were transformed by the Cyrenaican settlements" ], "settlers": [ "Greek settlers from Thera and later migrants to Cyrene and neighboring cities" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "greek_colonization", "greek_territory" ], "targets": [ { "name": "North Africa", "lon": 8, "lat": 34 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Aegean Greek poleis", "lon": 24.315, "lat": 38.2174 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, ancient texts, epigraphy, or genetics as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "med-greek-western-emporia-massalia", "name": "Greek colonial ports in southern Gaul and eastern Iberia", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "c. 600–450 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 180, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -600, "end": -450 } ], "story": "Phocaean settlers established Massalia, Emporion, and related ports. Their settlement permanently changed coastal landholding and trade, but broad claims of Indigenous expulsion exceed the evidence for many sites.", "displaced": [ "Ligurian, Iberian, and other local communities incorporated into new port and exchange systems" ], "settlers": [ "Phocaean and other Greek settlers centered on Massalia and Emporion" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "greek_colonization", "greek_territory" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Massalia (Marseille)", "lon": 5.38, "lat": 43.3 }, { "name": "Emporion (Empúries)", "lon": 3.1, "lat": 42.13 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Phocaea (Foça)", "lon": 26.95, "lat": 38.8 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, ancient texts, epigraphy, or genetics as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "asia-qin-sichuan-colonization", "name": "Qin conquest and colonization of the Sichuan Basin", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "316–221 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 170, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -316, "end": -221 } ], "story": "After conquering Ba and Shu, Qin imposed counties, infrastructure, and colonist settlement that integrated the basin into the expanding state. Political dispossession and durable demographic integration make this a distinct internal-colonization process.", "displaced": [ "Ba and Shu polities and populations subjected to conquest, administrative replacement, and incoming settlement" ], "settlers": [ "Qin state, soldiers, officials, convicts, and farming settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "qin_resettlement", "korolkov" ], "targets": [ { "name": "East Asia", "lon": 121, "lat": 24 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Qin heartland (Guanzhong)", "lon": 108.7, "lat": 34.3 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, ancient texts, epigraphy, or genetics as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "asia-qin-han-lingnan-settlement", "name": "Qin–Han conquest and settler incorporation of Lingnan", "region": "East & Southeast Asia", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "214 BCE–220 CE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 260, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -214, "end": 220 } ], "story": "Imperial conquest created southern commanderies and moved military and civilian populations into Lingnan. Local Yue populations survived and mixed with newcomers, but sovereignty, land use, and identity were durably transformed.", "displaced": [ "Baiyue and related southern populations subjected to conquest, commandery rule, migration, and assimilation" ], "settlers": [ "Qin and Han armies, officials, exiles, convicts, merchants, and farming households" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "qin_resettlement", "korolkov" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Southern China and northern mainland Southeast Asia", "lon": 109, "lat": 23 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Qin heartland (Guanzhong)", "lon": 108.7, "lat": 34.3 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, ancient texts, epigraphy, or genetics as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "asia-han-southwest-commandery-settlement", "name": "Han conquest and commandery settlement in the southwest", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "c. 135 BCE–220 CE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 210, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -135, "end": 220 } ], "story": "Han forces and administrators incorporated southwestern polities into commandery systems accompanied by migration and agricultural settlement. The scale of displacement is less securely measured than political subordination and cultural-demographic change.", "displaced": [ "Dian, Yelang, and other southwestern polities and communities" ], "settlers": [ "Han imperial armies, officials, migrants, merchants, and agricultural colonists" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "qin_resettlement", "korolkov" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Southwestern China", "lon": 101, "lat": 25 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Qin heartland (Guanzhong)", "lon": 108.7, "lat": 34.3 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, ancient texts, epigraphy, or genetics as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "med-roman-caesarian-augustan-veteran-colonies", "name": "Caesarian and Augustan veteran colonization across the Mediterranean", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "49 BCE–100 CE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 156, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -49, "end": 100 } ], "story": "Caesar, Augustus, and successors settled veterans and civilians in provincial colonies across the Mediterranean and western Europe. Land grants could dispossess local owners, but the balance of new settlement, municipal promotion, and legal relabeling differs sharply by colony.", "displaced": [ "Provincial and defeated communities whose urban or agrarian land was assigned to colonies and veterans" ], "settlers": [ "Roman state, generals, discharged soldiers, and civilian colonists" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "roman_colonies", "roman_landscapes" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Emerita Augusta (Mérida)", "lon": -6.34, "lat": 38.92 }, { "name": "Arausio (Orange)", "lon": 4.81, "lat": 44.14 }, { "name": "Carthage and African veteran-colony zone", "lon": 10.33, "lat": 36.85 }, { "name": "Philippi", "lon": 24.29, "lat": 41.01 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome & central Italy", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, ancient texts, epigraphy, or genetics as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "am-brazil-southern-immigrant-colonization", "name": "Immigrant colonization and Indigenous land seizure in southern Brazil", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1824–c. 1940", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 200, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1824, "end": 1940 } ], "story": "Governments and companies granted Indigenous land to European immigrant colonies in southern Brazil. Armed expeditions and hired bugreiros killed or removed Kaingang and Xokleng communities to open settlement districts.", "displaced": [ "Kaingang, Xokleng/Laklãnõ, Guarani, and other Indigenous peoples targeted by land grants, removals, and settler militias" ], "settlers": [ "Brazilian imperial and republican governments, colonization companies, and German, Italian, Polish, and Luso-Brazilian settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "latin_america", "figueiredo_survival" ], "targets": [ { "name": "South America", "lon": -52, "lat": -29 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Brazilian coastal & SE core", "lon": -46.6, "lat": -23.5 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "am-brazil-march-west-xavante-displacement", "name": "Brazil's March to the West and Xavante territorial invasion", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "1937–c. 1970", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 230, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1937, "end": 1970 } ], "story": "State expeditions, missions, roads, and ranching opened central Brazil to national settlement. Xavante communities suffered epidemic collapse and coercive relocation as their territory was transferred to outsiders.", "displaced": [ "Xavante/A'uwẽ and other central Brazilian Indigenous peoples subjected to contact, epidemic loss, removal, and land seizure" ], "settlers": [ "Brazilian state agencies, expeditionaries, ranchers, missionaries, and incoming settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "garfield_xavante", "figueiredo_survival" ], "targets": [ { "name": "South America", "lon": -52, "lat": -14 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Brazilian coastal & SE core", "lon": -46.6, "lat": -23.5 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "am-brazil-amazon-highway-frontier", "name": "Brazilian Amazon highway, ranching, mining, and colonization frontiers", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "1964–present", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1964, "end": 2026 } ], "story": "Highways, settlement schemes, dams, mining, ranching, and agribusiness moved outsiders into Indigenous and forest-community territories. Violence, disease, land fraud, and ecological destruction continue to displace communities and undermine territorial control across the Brazilian Amazon and connected borderlands.", "displaced": [ "Yanomami, Kayapó, Awá, Uru-eu-wau-wau, and numerous other Indigenous and traditional communities" ], "settlers": [ "Brazilian military and civilian governments, colonization agencies, ranchers, miners, loggers, agribusiness, and migrant settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "figueiredo_survival", "latin_america", "garfield_xavante" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Amazonia", "lon": -60, "lat": -5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Brazilian coastal & SE core", "lon": -46.6, "lat": -23.5 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "am-tupi-atlantic-coast-expansion", "name": "Tupi-speaking expansion along Brazil's Atlantic coast", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 500–1500 CE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 280, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 500, "end": 1500 } ], "story": "Tupi-speaking farming settlements spread widely along the Atlantic coast before European arrival. Archaeology supports demic expansion, but local displacement, absorption, and cultural transmission cannot be reduced to a single uniform mechanism.", "displaced": [ "Earlier Atlantic-forest and coastal populations variably displaced, incorporated, or linguistically replaced" ], "settlers": [ "Tupi-speaking agricultural communities expanding from lowland South America" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "tupi_iriarte", "tupi_bonomo" ], "targets": [ { "name": "South America", "lon": -45, "lat": -14 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Southern Amazonia", "lon": -60, "lat": -11 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "am-guarani-parana-plata-expansion", "name": "Guarani expansion through the Paraná–Plata basin", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 500–1600 CE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 280, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 500, "end": 1600 } ], "story": "Guarani-speaking agricultural villages spread through major southern river systems and established a wide demographic and linguistic zone. Expansion involved migration and community formation; the balance of warfare, incorporation, and coexistence varied.", "displaced": [ "Earlier riverine and lowland populations of the Paraná, Paraguay, Uruguay, and upper Plata systems" ], "settlers": [ "Guarani-speaking farming communities" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "tupi_bonomo", "tupi_iriarte" ], "targets": [ { "name": "South America", "lon": -58, "lat": -27 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Southern Amazonia", "lon": -60, "lat": -11 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "asia-tai-central-mainland-settlement", "name": "Tai settlement and state formation in the Chao Phraya and Mekong lowlands", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 1000–1450 CE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 280, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1000, "end": 1450 } ], "story": "Tai- and Lao-speaking communities expanded through irrigated lowlands and formed new polities including Sukhothai, Lan Na, Ayutthaya, and Lan Xang. Mon and Khmer populations were absorbed, subordinated, or pushed from some political centers rather than uniformly replaced.", "displaced": [ "Mon, Khmer, and other lowland populations subjected to migration, warfare, political subordination, and assimilation" ], "settlers": [ "Tai- and Lao-speaking wet-rice communities and emerging lowland polities" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "tai_oconnor", "tai_wyatt" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Mainland Southeast Asia", "lon": 101, "lat": 18 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Tai homeland, Guangxi & north Vietnam", "lon": 106.5, "lat": 22.8 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "asia-shan-tai-western-mainland-settlement", "name": "Shan and other Tai settlement in the western mainland uplands", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "analogue", "mechanism": "demographic expansion", "dates": "c. 1000–1500 CE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 280, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1000, "end": 1500 } ], "story": "Tai-speaking groups established Shan principalities across upland valleys west of the Salween and into adjoining regions. The outcome was layered political and linguistic change rather than a single mass replacement.", "displaced": [ "Mon, Burman, Tibeto-Burman, and upland populations variably subordinated, absorbed, or displaced" ], "settlers": [ "Shan and other Tai-speaking migrant communities and principalities" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: demographic expansion. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "tai_oconnor", "tai_wyatt" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Mainland Southeast Asia", "lon": 101, "lat": 18 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Tai homeland, Guangxi & north Vietnam", "lon": 106.5, "lat": 22.8 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, genetics, linguistics, chronicles, or oral history as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "af-zulu-state-formation-displacement", "name": "Zulu state formation, incorporation, and displacement in southeastern Africa", "region": "Africa", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "c. 1816–1840", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "caseLabelAngle": 315, "periods": [ { "start": 1816, "end": 1840 } ], "story": "Zulu state formation used warfare and regimental incorporation to consolidate southeastern African chiefdoms and helped propel defeated groups outward. It was one cause within a wider upheaval, not a sufficient explanation for every regional displacement attributed to the Mfecane.", "contested": "Evidence limits and dispute: Historians dispute the causal weight of Zulu expansion relative to drought, trade, colonial slave raiding, and later settler narratives that portrayed land as emptied. The map must not reproduce the 'vacant land' alibi.", "displaced": [ "Ndwandwe, Hlubi, Ngwane, and other northern Nguni chiefdoms broken up, absorbed, or driven into migration" ], "settlers": [ "Zulu kingdom and allied or incorporated regiments under Shaka and successors" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "omer_cooper", "cobbing_mfecane" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Southern Africa", "lon": 27, "lat": -23 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Northern Nguni country", "lon": 31.8, "lat": -28.7 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "af-ngoni-tanzania-conquests", "name": "Ngoni settlement and conquest in southern Tanzania", "region": "Africa", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "c. 1840–1900", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 260, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1840, "end": 1900 } ], "story": "Ngoni groups and incorporated followers moved into southern Tanzania, founded settlements, raided for cattle and captives, and reshaped regional military politics. This northern phase cannot be treated as the same local event as Ngoni state formation around Malawi.", "displaced": [ "Bena, Hehe, Sangu, Nyamwezi, and other communities affected by Ngoni raiding, settlement, and military imitation" ], "settlers": [ "Ngoni groups moving north under Zwangendaba's successors and related leaders" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "barnes_ngoni", "omer_cooper" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Eastern Africa", "lon": 35, "lat": -8 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Zululand", "lon": 31.4, "lat": -28 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "ancient-egypt-middle-kingdom-lower-nubia", "name": "Middle Kingdom fortress colonization of Lower Nubia", "region": "Africa", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "c. 2050–1650 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 150, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -2050, "end": -1650 } ], "story": "Egypt established a chain of fortified colonial installations in Lower Nubia to control movement, trade, and resources, with garrison and administrative communities occupying strategic sites.", "displaced": [ "Lower Nubian C-Group communities subjected to fortification, extraction, and constrained movement" ], "settlers": [ "Middle Kingdom Egyptian crown, garrisons, administrators, artisans, and attached households" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "egypt_nubia", "egypt_nubia_mixture" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Lower Nubia", "lon": 32.7, "lat": 21.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Egyptian Nile Valley", "lon": 31.2, "lat": 27.2 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, ancient texts, epigraphy, or genetics as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "ancient-egypt-new-kingdom-nubia", "name": "New Kingdom conquest and colonial settlement of Nubia", "region": "Africa", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "c. 1550–1070 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 180, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -1550, "end": -1070 } ], "story": "New Kingdom rulers conquered far into Nubia and built towns, temples, administrative centers, and military installations staffed partly by migrants while also incorporating Nubian elites and communities.", "displaced": [ "Kerma/Kushite and other Nubian populations incorporated into Egyptian imperial administration" ], "settlers": [ "New Kingdom Egyptian armies, viceroys, temple institutions, officials, soldiers, and households" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "egypt_nubia", "egypt_nubia_mixture" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Lower and Upper Nubia", "lon": 31.5, "lat": 19.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Egyptian Nile Valley", "lon": 31.2, "lat": 27.2 } ], "evidence": "archaeology, ancient texts, epigraphy, or genetics as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "medieval-seljuk-turkmen-anatolia", "name": "Seljuk conquest and Oghuz–Turkmen settlement in Anatolia", "region": "West Asia", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "c. 1040–1204", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 240, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1040, "end": 1204 } ], "story": "Seljuk victory and recurring Turkmen migration established new pastoral, military, and urban communities across Anatolia amid Byzantine contraction, warfare, population flight, and substantial local continuity.", "displaced": [ "Byzantine Greek, Armenian, Syriac Christian, and other established populations subjected to war, flight, tribute, or incorporation" ], "settlers": [ "Seljuk armies and Oghuz–Turkmen pastoral and military communities" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "anatolia_beihammer", "anatolia_genetics", "anatolia_islamization" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Anatolia and the Armenian Highlands", "lon": 38, "lat": 39 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Khorasan & the Iranian plateau", "lon": 61.8, "lat": 37.7 }, { "name": "Azerbaijan corridor", "lon": 45.8, "lat": 38.1 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "atlantic-spanish-hispaniola-conquest-settlement", "name": "Spanish conquest and settlement of Hispaniola", "region": "Caribbean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1492–c. 1550", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 150, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 10, "periods": [ { "start": 1492, "end": 1550 } ], "story": "Spanish colonies seized land and labor across Hispaniola, violently suppressing resistance and building mining and plantation settlements amid catastrophic Indigenous population loss.", "displaced": [ "Taíno communities of Ayiti/Quisqueya subjected to war, forced labor, dispossession, disease, and enslavement" ], "settlers": [ "Castilian settlers, royal officials, encomenderos, and military expeditions" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "livi_bacci", "braun_caribbean", "resendez" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Caribbean", "lon": -71, "lat": 19 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Castile & Andalusian ports", "lon": -6, "lat": 37.4 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "atlantic-spanish-puerto-rico-conquest-settlement", "name": "Spanish conquest and settlement of Borikén/Puerto Rico", "region": "Caribbean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1508–c. 1550", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 140, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 10, "periods": [ { "start": 1508, "end": 1550 } ], "story": "Spanish settlement beginning under Juan Ponce de León imposed encomienda, mining, and coercive labor, provoking Taíno resistance and producing rapid demographic and territorial transformation.", "displaced": [ "Taíno communities of Borikén subjected to war, forced labor, enslavement, dispossession, and disease" ], "settlers": [ "Spanish settlers, encomenderos, military forces, and royal officials" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "livi_bacci", "braun_caribbean", "resendez" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Caribbean", "lon": -66.4, "lat": 18.3 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Castile & Andalusian ports", "lon": -6, "lat": 37.4 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "atlantic-spanish-cuba-conquest-settlement", "name": "Spanish conquest and settlement of Cuba", "region": "Caribbean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1511–c. 1550", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 170, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1511, "end": 1550 } ], "story": "Spanish forces conquered Cuba and founded settler towns while imposing coerced Indigenous labor and appropriating land; survivors resisted, fled, mixed, or were absorbed into colonial society.", "displaced": [ "Taíno and other Indigenous Cuban communities subjected to conquest, forced labor, enslavement, dispossession, and disease" ], "settlers": [ "Spanish military expeditions, settlers, encomenderos, and town councils" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "livi_bacci", "braun_caribbean", "resendez" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Caribbean", "lon": -78.8, "lat": 21.8 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Castile & Andalusian ports", "lon": -6, "lat": 37.4 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "atlantic-new-france-acadian-settlement", "name": "French and Acadian settlement in Mi'kma'ki", "region": "North America", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1604–1755", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 190, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1604, "end": 1755 } ], "story": "French and Acadian communities created durable agricultural settlements in Mi'kma'ki, while alliance, exchange, conflict, and limited settler numbers produced a different pattern from later British replacement settlement.", "displaced": [ "Mi'kmaq and Wəlastəkwewiyik territories subjected to new forts, farms, missions, and imperial claims" ], "settlers": [ "French colonial officials and Acadian farming communities" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "canada_harris", "prior" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Atlantic Canada", "lon": -64, "lat": 46 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Western & northern France", "lon": -1.5, "lat": 47.5 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "atlantic-new-france-st-lawrence-settlement", "name": "French seigneurial settlement along the St. Lawrence", "region": "North America", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1608–1763", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 190, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1608, "end": 1763 } ], "story": "French colonists established towns and river-lot farms along the St. Lawrence, combining permanent settlement with missionary, military, diplomatic, and fur-trade relations extending far beyond the settled corridor.", "displaced": [ "Innu, Wendat, Haudenosaunee, Abenaki, and other nations whose territories and political relations were transformed" ], "settlers": [ "French crown, seigneurs, religious orders, soldiers, and farming families" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "canada_harris", "prior" ], "targets": [ { "name": "St. Lawrence Valley", "lon": -71.9406, "lat": 46.3875 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Western & northern France", "lon": -1.5, "lat": 47.5 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "atlantic-british-chesapeake-settlement", "name": "English settlement and Powhatan dispossession in the Chesapeake", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1607–1677", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 150, "viewPadding": 24, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1607, "end": 1677 } ], "story": "Jamestown and the expanding tobacco economy drove seizure of riverine land, repeated war, disease, forced tribute, and the reduction of Powhatan political autonomy.", "displaced": [ "Powhatan confederacy communities and other Chesapeake peoples" ], "settlers": [ "Virginia Company colonists, English tobacco planters, colonial militias, and Crown authorities" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "prior", "blackhawk", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Jamestown and the lower James River settlement corridor", "lon": -76.77, "lat": 37.21 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "England, Scotland & Ireland", "lon": -2, "lat": 53 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "atlantic-british-new-england-settlement", "name": "English Puritan settlement and Indigenous dispossession in New England", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1620–1676", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 160, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1620, "end": 1676 } ], "story": "Large family migration created dense English towns, while land transfer, missionary settlement, disease, and wars broke Indigenous territorial control across much of southern New England.", "displaced": [ "Wampanoag, Pequot, Narragansett, Massachusett, Nipmuc, and other Indigenous nations" ], "settlers": [ "Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonists, New England towns, and colonial militias" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "prior", "blackhawk", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "New England", "lon": -71.5, "lat": 43 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "England, Scotland & Ireland", "lon": -2, "lat": 53 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "atlantic-british-middle-colonies-settlement", "name": "British settlement and Indigenous dispossession in the middle colonies", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1664–1763", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 170, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1664, "end": 1763 } ], "story": "Rapid farm settlement expanded from the Hudson, Delaware, and lower Susquehanna corridors through purchase, fraud, squatting, diplomacy, and war, displacing Indigenous communities westward.", "displaced": [ "Lenape, Susquehannock, Haudenosaunee, and neighboring Indigenous communities" ], "settlers": [ "English, Welsh, Scottish, Scots-Irish, German, and other settlers under British colonial governments" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "prior", "blackhawk", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Mid-Atlantic North America", "lon": -75, "lat": 40.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "England, Scotland & Ireland", "lon": -2, "lat": 53 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "atlantic-british-carolinas-georgia-settlement", "name": "British plantation settlement in the Carolinas and Georgia", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1663–1763", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 200, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 5, "periods": [ { "start": 1663, "end": 1763 } ], "story": "Settlers from England and Barbados established plantation colonies, seized coastal and interior land, and fueled warfare and Indigenous slave trading before expanding through rice and indigo cultivation.", "displaced": [ "Cusabo, Yamasee, Catawba, Cherokee, Muscogee, and other southeastern nations", "Enslaved Africans forced into the plantation system" ], "settlers": [ "English and Barbadian colonists, plantation owners, traders, and colonial militias" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "prior", "blackhawk", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Southeastern North America", "lon": -82, "lat": 34 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "England", "lon": -2.5, "lat": 52.5 }, { "name": "Barbados", "lon": -59.55, "lat": 13.18 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "atlantic-british-barbados-leewards-plantation-settlement", "name": "British plantation settlement in Barbados and the Leeward Islands", "region": "Caribbean", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1624–1783", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 180, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1624, "end": 1783 } ], "story": "English colonies seized island land and developed plantation economies in which a small settler class depended on the forced migration and labor of a much larger enslaved African population.", "displaced": [ "Kalinago and other Indigenous island communities", "Enslaved Africans forced into sugar plantation labor" ], "settlers": [ "English settlers, plantation owners, merchants, and colonial governments" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "prior", "blackhawk", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Barbados", "lon": -59.55, "lat": 13.18 }, { "name": "Antigua", "lon": -61.8, "lat": 17.07 }, { "name": "St Kitts", "lon": -62.73, "lat": 17.33 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "England, Scotland & Ireland", "lon": -2, "lat": 53 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "atlantic-british-jamaica-conquest-plantation", "name": "British conquest and plantation colonization of Jamaica", "region": "Caribbean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1655–1838", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 150, "viewPadding": 23, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 10, "hideLabels": [ "Caribbean Sea" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1655, "end": 1838 } ], "story": "British conquest removed Spanish rule and promoted plantation settlement, while the island's demographic transformation depended overwhelmingly on enslaved Africans and persistent Maroon resistance.", "displaced": [ "Spanish residents expelled after conquest", "Maroons and enslaved Africans resisting or subjected to plantation rule" ], "settlers": [ "British military occupiers, settlers, plantation owners, and colonial officials" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "prior", "blackhawk", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Jamaica", "lon": -77.3, "lat": 18.1 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "England, Scotland & Ireland", "lon": -2, "lat": 53 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "atlantic-bahamas-turks-post-lucayan-settlement", "name": "British settlement of the depopulated Bahamas and Turks and Caicos", "region": "Caribbean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest with settlement", "dates": "1648–1783", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 110, "viewPadding": 16, "markerScale": 0.62, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 10, "periods": [ { "start": 1648, "end": 1783 } ], "story": "Spanish slaving had removed the Lucayan population before durable British colonization; later settlers, including Loyalists with enslaved laborers, established new societies on the depopulated islands. The map distinguishes early settlement on Eleuthera and New Providence from British occupation of Grand Turk in the Turks and Caicos.", "displaced": [ "Lucayan communities previously removed into Spanish slavery before British permanent settlement" ], "settlers": [ "English and British settlers, including Loyalists after the American Revolution" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: conquest with settlement. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "livi_bacci", "resendez", "prior" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Eleuthera", "lon": -76.14, "lat": 25.1 }, { "name": "New Providence", "lon": -77.35, "lat": 25.05 }, { "name": "Grand Turk", "lon": -71.14, "lat": 21.47 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "England, Scotland & Ireland", "lon": -2, "lat": 53 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "atlantic-loyalist-maritimes-settlement", "name": "Loyalist settlement and Indigenous land loss in the Maritimes", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1783–1815", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 190, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "routeAnchors": [ { "label": "New York Harbor", "lon": -74.01, "lat": 40.71, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "1783_loyalist_departure" } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1783, "end": 1815 } ], "story": "British authorities settled Loyalists on surveyed grants after the American Revolution, creating New Brunswick and accelerating appropriation of Indigenous lands while distributing land unequally among Loyalists.", "displaced": [ "Mi'kmaq and Wəlastəkwewiyik communities whose territories were granted to incoming settlers", "Black Loyalists subjected to discriminatory grants and later removal" ], "settlers": [ "Loyalist refugees, British colonial authorities, and later British migrants" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "canada_harris", "canada_rueck" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Atlantic Canada", "lon": -64, "lat": 46 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "New York Harbor", "lon": -74.01, "lat": 40.71, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "1783_loyalist_departure" } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "atlantic-loyalist-upper-canada-settlement", "name": "Loyalist settlement and treaty land acquisition in Upper Canada", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1783–1815", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 220, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "routeAnchors": [ { "label": "Mohawk Valley / Utica", "lon": -75.23, "lat": 43.1, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "loyalist_and_haudenosaunee_departure" }, { "label": "Fort Niagara", "lon": -79.06, "lat": 43.26, "use": "route_waypoint", "stream": "upper_canada_entry" }, { "label": "Oswego / upper St. Lawrence corridor", "lon": -76.51, "lat": 43.46, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "loyalist_departure" } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1783, "end": 1815 } ], "story": "The Crown acquired and surveyed Great Lakes and St. Lawrence lands for Loyalists, creating a new colony and dense agricultural settlement while narrowing Indigenous control.", "displaced": [ "Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, and other nations whose lands were purchased, granted, surveyed, or occupied" ], "settlers": [ "Loyalist refugees, British colonial authorities, and survey and land-grant institutions" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "canada_harris", "canada_rueck" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Great Lakes and St. Lawrence", "lon": -79, "lat": 44.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Mohawk Valley / Utica", "lon": -75.23, "lat": 43.1, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "loyalist_and_haudenosaunee_departure" }, { "name": "Oswego / upper St. Lawrence corridor", "lon": -76.51, "lat": 43.46, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "loyalist_departure" } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "atlantic-british-mass-immigration-canadas", "name": "British and Irish mass immigration and agricultural expansion in the Canadas", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1815–1867", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 250, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1815, "end": 1867 } ], "story": "After 1815, mass migration, road and canal building, timber extraction, and agricultural settlement extended colonial occupation across Upper and Lower Canada and the Maritimes.", "displaced": [ "Anishinaabe, Haudenosaunee, Innu, and other Indigenous peoples facing treaty pressure, reserve contraction, and settler encroachment" ], "settlers": [ "British and Irish migrants, colonial land companies, timber interests, and Crown governments" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "canada_harris", "canada_rueck" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Eastern Canada", "lon": -75, "lat": 48 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Britain & Ireland", "lon": -2.8559, "lat": 54.0149 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "us-old-northwest-settlement-dispossession", "name": "United States settlement and dispossession in the Ohio Valley and Old Northwest", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1783–1832", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 250, "originDisplay": "edge", "routeAnchors": [ { "label": "Pittsburgh / Fort Pitt–Fort Fayette", "lon": -80, "lat": 40.44, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "federal_military_and_settler_staging" }, { "label": "Cincinnati / Fort Washington", "lon": -84.51, "lat": 39.1, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "federal_military_and_settler_staging" } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1783, "end": 1832 } ], "story": "Federal surveys and land sales converted Indigenous homelands into settler property after repeated wars and coerced treaties, pushing the frontier from the Ohio Valley through the southern Great Lakes.", "displaced": [ "Shawnee, Miami, Delaware/Lenape, Haudenosaunee, Anishinaabe, Ho-Chunk, and other nations" ], "settlers": [ "United States land offices and armies, territorial governments, land companies, and settler militias" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "blackhawk", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Eastern North America", "lon": -82, "lat": 41 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Pittsburgh / Fort Pitt–Fort Fayette", "lon": -80, "lat": 40.44, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "federal_military_and_settler_staging" }, { "name": "Cincinnati / Fort Washington", "lon": -84.51, "lat": 39.1, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "federal_military_and_settler_staging" } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "us-southeast-removal-cotton-frontier", "name": "Southeastern Indian Removal and the United States cotton frontier", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1803–1840", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 200, "originDisplay": "edge", "routeAnchors": [ { "label": "Georgia–Carolinas settler corridor", "lon": -81.97, "lat": 33.47, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "settler_frontier" }, { "label": "Alexandria and the Upper South forced-migration corridor", "lon": -77.05, "lat": 38.8, "use": "forced_route_origin", "stream": "coerced_slave_trade" }, { "label": "Milledgeville", "lon": -83.23, "lat": 33.08, "use": "actor_node", "stream": "state_command" } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1803, "end": 1840 } ], "story": "Federal and state authorities extinguished Indigenous title and deported nations west of the Mississippi while settlers and enslaved laborers occupied the ceded land for cotton production.", "displaced": [ "Cherokee, Muscogee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, and other southeastern nations", "Enslaved African Americans forced into the expanding cotton frontier" ], "settlers": [ "United States and state governments, land speculators, slaveholding settlers, militias, and removal contractors" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "blackhawk", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Southeastern North America", "lon": -82, "lat": 34 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Georgia–Carolinas settler corridor", "lon": -81.97, "lat": 33.47, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "settler_frontier" }, { "name": "Alexandria and the Upper South forced-migration corridor", "lon": -77.05, "lat": 38.8, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin", "routeStream": "coerced_slave_trade" } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "us-great-plains-conquest-homesteading", "name": "United States conquest and homestead settlement of the Great Plains", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1848–1890", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 260, "originDisplay": "edge", "routeAnchors": [ { "label": "Fort Leavenworth", "lon": -94.92, "lat": 39.35, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "federal_military_staging" }, { "label": "Omaha–Council Bluffs", "lon": -95.93, "lat": 41.26, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "settler_and_rail_staging" } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1848, "end": 1890 } ], "story": "Military campaigns and the destruction of bison economies forced Plains nations onto reservations while railroads, ranches, and homesteads transferred land to incoming settlers.", "displaced": [ "Lakota, Dakota, Nakota, Cheyenne, Arapaho, Kiowa, Comanche, Pawnee, and other Plains nations" ], "settlers": [ "United States armies and agencies, railroad corporations, homesteaders, ranchers, and territorial governments" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "plains_ostler", "blackhawk", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Great Plains", "lon": -101, "lat": 42 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Fort Leavenworth", "lon": -94.92, "lat": 39.35, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "federal_military_staging" }, { "name": "Omaha–Council Bluffs", "lon": -95.93, "lat": 41.26, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "settler_and_rail_staging" } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "us-southwest-conquest-navajo-apache", "name": "United States conquest and settlement of Diné and Apache homelands", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1846–1886", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 230, "originDisplay": "edge", "routeAnchors": [ { "label": "Fort Leavenworth", "lon": -94.92, "lat": 39.35, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "federal_military_staging" }, { "label": "Santa Fe / Fort Marcy", "lon": -105.94, "lat": 35.69, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "new_mexico_campaign_staging" }, { "label": "Fort Bowie / Apache Pass", "lon": -109.45, "lat": 32.15, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "arizona_campaign_staging" } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1846, "end": 1886 } ], "story": "After taking the region from Mexico, United States forces imposed campaigns, forced marches, and reservation confinement while mines, ranches, towns, and railroads occupied Indigenous lands.", "displaced": [ "Diné/Navajo, Apache nations, Pueblo communities, and other Indigenous residents" ], "settlers": [ "United States armies and territorial governments, miners, ranchers, and agricultural settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "blackhawk", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Southwestern North America", "lon": -108, "lat": 34 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Fort Leavenworth", "lon": -94.92, "lat": 39.35, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "federal_military_staging" }, { "name": "Santa Fe / Fort Marcy", "lon": -105.94, "lat": 35.69, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "new_mexico_campaign_staging" }, { "name": "Fort Bowie / Apache Pass", "lon": -109.45, "lat": 32.15, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "arizona_campaign_staging" } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "us-california-genocide-settlement", "name": "United States conquest, genocide, and settler occupation of California", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "genocide-linked clearance", "dates": "1846–1873", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 190, "originDisplay": "edge", "routeAnchors": [ { "label": "Independence, Missouri", "lon": -94.42, "lat": 39.09, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "overland_migration" }, { "label": "New York maritime departures", "lon": -74.01, "lat": 40.71, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "maritime_migration" }, { "label": "Panama isthmus transit", "lon": -79.62, "lat": 9.08, "use": "route_waypoint", "stream": "maritime_via_panama" }, { "label": "Cape Horn passage", "lon": -67.27, "lat": -55.98, "use": "route_waypoint", "stream": "maritime_via_cape_horn" }, { "label": "Sacramento", "lon": -121.49, "lat": 38.58, "use": "actor_node", "stream": "state_and_militia_action" } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1846, "end": 1873 } ], "story": "United States annexation and the gold rush brought explosive settler migration, state-supported militia campaigns, kidnapping and coerced labor, and near-total loss of Indigenous land.", "displaced": [ "California Indigenous nations subjected to massacre, enslavement, land seizure, starvation, and removal" ], "settlers": [ "United States and California governments, militias, miners, ranchers, and settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: genocide-linked clearance. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "native_california", "blackhawk", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "California", "lon": -120, "lat": 37 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Independence, Missouri", "lon": -94.42, "lat": 39.09, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "overland_migration" }, { "name": "New York maritime departures", "lon": -74.01, "lat": 40.71, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "maritime_migration" } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "us-alaska-colonial-settlement", "name": "United States colonial incorporation and settlement of Alaska", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1867–1959", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 220, "originDisplay": "edge", "routeAnchors": [ { "label": "San Francisco", "lon": -122.2847, "lat": 37.6423, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "early_us_commercial_and_settler_route" }, { "label": "Seattle / Puget Sound", "lon": -122.33, "lat": 47.61, "use": "route_origin", "stream": "later_us_settler_and_administrative_route" }, { "label": "Sitka / Castle Hill", "lon": -135.33, "lat": 57.05, "use": "actor_node", "stream": "territorial_administration" } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1867, "end": 1959 } ], "story": "United States purchase replaced Russian imperial authority with a territorial regime that promoted extractive industries, missions, military rule, and later mass settler migration while denying Indigenous land sovereignty.", "displaced": [ "Alaska Native nations subjected to imposed sovereignty, land loss, mission schooling, extraction, and settler government" ], "settlers": [ "United States territorial authorities, military, missionaries, mining and fishing corporations, and incoming settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "blackhawk", "handbook", "russian_periphery" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Alaska", "lon": -151, "lat": 64 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "San Francisco", "lon": -122.2847, "lat": 37.6423, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "early_us_commercial_and_settler_route" }, { "name": "Seattle / Puget Sound", "lon": -122.33, "lat": 47.61, "routeUse": "route_origin", "routeStream": "later_us_settler_and_administrative_route" } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "canada-red-river-metis-dispossession", "name": "Canadian acquisition of the Northwest and Métis dispossession", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1869–1885", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 250, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1869, "end": 1885 } ], "story": "Canada acquired Rupert's Land, imposed a new survey and land system, and used scrip and military power in ways that dispersed Métis landholding and opened the region to newcomers.", "displaced": [ "Métis communities at Red River and along the South Saskatchewan, and allied First Nations" ], "settlers": [ "Canadian federal authorities, surveyors, militia, land speculators, and incoming settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "canada_harris", "canada_eyford", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Red River and Saskatchewan", "lon": -101, "lat": 51 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Eastern Canadian core", "lon": -76, "lat": 44.5 }, { "name": "British & European migration", "lon": -3, "lat": 53 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "canada-prairie-treaties-railway-settlement", "name": "Numbered Treaties, reserve confinement, and Prairie settler colonization", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1871–1930", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 260, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1871, "end": 1930 } ], "story": "Canada negotiated and coercively implemented treaties, confined First Nations to reserves, and promoted railway-linked farm settlement by migrants from eastern Canada, Europe, and the United States.", "displaced": [ "Cree, Saulteaux, Blackfoot Confederacy, Nakoda, Dakota, Dene, and other Prairie and parkland nations" ], "settlers": [ "Canadian federal government, railway and immigration agencies, land companies, and farming settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "canada_harris", "canada_eyford", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Canadian Prairies", "lon": -105, "lat": 52 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Eastern Canadian core", "lon": -76, "lat": 44.5 }, { "name": "British & European migration", "lon": -3, "lat": 53 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "canada-british-columbia-land-settlement", "name": "Settler land seizure and reserve creation in British Columbia", "region": "North America", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1858–1927", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 220, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1858, "end": 1927 } ], "story": "Colonial and Canadian governments asserted sovereignty, granted land and resources to settlers, and confined First Nations to small reserves while rejecting most Indigenous title claims.", "displaced": [ "Coastal and interior First Nations whose territories were occupied largely without treaties" ], "settlers": [ "British colonial and Canadian authorities, miners, ranchers, railway interests, and agricultural settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "canada_harris", "canada_eyford", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "British Columbia", "lon": -124, "lat": 54 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Eastern Canadian core", "lon": -76, "lat": 44.5 }, { "name": "British & European migration", "lon": -3, "lat": 53 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "canada-northern-state-settlement", "name": "Canadian northern administration, resource towns, and Indigenous resettlement", "region": "North America", "fit": "strong", "mechanism": "state resettlement/internal colonization", "dates": "1898–present", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 340, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1898, "end": 2026 } ], "story": "Police posts, missions, mines, military infrastructure, administrative settlements, schooling, and relocations concentrated northern populations and transferred decision-making over land and resources to the Canadian state.", "displaced": [ "Inuit, Dene, and other northern peoples subjected to imposed administration, schooling, settlement concentration, relocation, and resource development" ], "settlers": [ "Canadian federal and territorial authorities, police, missions, mining and hydrocarbon industries, and incoming workers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: state resettlement/internal colonization. Evidence confidence: medium.", "sources": [ "canada_harris", "canada_eyford", "handbook", "modern_high_arctic_relocation" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Northern Canada", "lon": -105, "lat": 67 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Eastern Canadian core", "lon": -76, "lat": 44.5 }, { "name": "British & European migration", "lon": -3, "lat": 53 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "medium" }, { "id": "russia-west-siberian-conquest-settlement", "name": "Russian conquest and settlement of western Siberia", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1582–c. 1700", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1582, "end": 1700 } ], "story": "Cossack campaigns and fort construction imposed tribute and sovereignty while towns, farms, missions, and exile settlement gradually expanded along western Siberian rivers.", "displaced": [ "Khanty, Mansi, Nenets, Selkup, Siberian Tatar, and other western Siberian peoples" ], "settlers": [ "Russian Cossacks, servitors, tribute collectors, merchants, peasants, and Orthodox missions" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "russian_periphery", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Western Siberia", "lon": 73, "lat": 59 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Russian imperial core", "lon": 38, "lat": 55.5 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "russia-lena-yakutia-colonization", "name": "Russian colonization of the Lena basin and Sakha country", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "c. 1620–1750", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 300, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1620, "end": 1750 } ], "story": "Russian forts and tribute expeditions imposed extractive rule in the Lena basin, with violence, epidemic loss, missionization, and incoming settlement altering Sakha and neighboring lands.", "displaced": [ "Sakha, Evenki, Yukaghir, and other Lena-basin peoples" ], "settlers": [ "Russian Cossacks, tribute collectors, merchants, peasants, and Orthodox missions" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "russian_periphery", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Eastern Siberia", "lon": 126, "lat": 62 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Russian imperial core", "lon": 38, "lat": 55.5 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "russia-baikal-buryat-colonization", "name": "Russian colonization of the Baikal region and Buryat lands", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "c. 1640–1900", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 250, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1640, "end": 1900 } ], "story": "Russian military and peasant settlement expanded around Lake Baikal and into Transbaikalia, appropriating pasture and farm land while reorganizing Buryat governance and religious life.", "displaced": [ "Buryat, Evenki, and other Baikal-region peoples" ], "settlers": [ "Russian Cossacks, peasants, exile settlers, Orthodox missions, and imperial administrators" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "russian_periphery", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "South-central Siberia", "lon": 106, "lat": 53 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Russian imperial core", "lon": 38, "lat": 55.5 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "russia-northeast-siberia-kamchatka-colonization", "name": "Russian conquest and settlement of northeastern Siberia and Kamchatka", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "c. 1640–1900", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 310, "originDisplay": "edge", "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 1640, "end": 1900 } ], "story": "Fur tribute, campaigns, hostage taking, epidemic disease, missionization, and settlement devastated many Kamchatkan communities, while Chukchi resistance forced a less direct imperial accommodation.", "displaced": [ "Chukchi, Koryak, Itelmen, Yukaghir, and other northeastern peoples" ], "settlers": [ "Russian Cossacks, tribute collectors, fur traders, Orthodox missions, and settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "russian_periphery", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Northeastern Siberia and Kamchatka", "lon": 159, "lat": 62 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Yakutsk and the Lena frontier", "lon": 129.73, "lat": 62.03 }, { "name": "Okhotsk Pacific staging point", "lon": 143.22, "lat": 59.36 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "south-africa-xhosa-frontier-wars-settlement", "name": "Xhosa frontier wars and British settlement of the eastern Cape", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1779–1878", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 160, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1779, "end": 1878 } ], "story": "Successive colonial advances across the Fish and Kei rivers used war, expulsion, annexation, mission settlement, and military colonization to transfer Xhosa land to settlers.", "displaced": [ "Xhosa polities and neighboring African communities subjected to land loss, cattle seizure, war, and famine" ], "settlers": [ "Cape colonial forces, British imperial troops, commandos, military settlers, and colonial farmers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "thompson_sa", "adhikari_san", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Eastern Cape", "lon": 27, "lat": -32.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Netherlands (VOC)", "lon": 4.9, "lat": 52.4 }, { "name": "Britain", "lon": -2.2, "lat": 54.4 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "south-africa-great-trek-interior-settlement", "name": "Great Trek and Boer settlement of the South African interior", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1835–1902", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 200, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1835, "end": 1902 } ], "story": "Voortrekkers established settler republics through migration, treaties, and war; later mineral capitalism and British conquest intensified land seizure, labor coercion, and state consolidation.", "displaced": [ "Ndebele, Zulu, Sotho, Tswana, Pedi, Venda, and other African polities whose land and sovereignty were attacked or constrained" ], "settlers": [ "Voortrekkers, Boer republic governments and commandos, and later British imperial forces and settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "thompson_sa", "saho_landact", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "South African interior", "lon": 27, "lat": -28 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Netherlands (VOC)", "lon": 4.9, "lat": 52.4 }, { "name": "Britain", "lon": -2.2, "lat": 54.4 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "australia-new-south-wales-frontier", "name": "British settlement and Aboriginal dispossession in New South Wales", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1788–c. 1850", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 240, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1788, "end": 1850 } ], "story": "A penal outpost became an expanding agricultural and pastoral colony, seizing water and land and using police, settler violence, massacre, and legal denial of sovereignty against Aboriginal nations.", "displaced": [ "Eora, Dharug, Wiradjuri, Gamilaraay, and other Aboriginal nations" ], "settlers": [ "British colonial government, convicts, free settlers, pastoral squatters, and mounted police" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "newcastle_massacres", "mabo_hca", "reynolds_frontier", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Eastern Australia", "lon": 149, "lat": -32 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Britain & Ireland", "lon": -2.5, "lat": 53.8 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "australia-van-diemens-land-frontier", "name": "Van Diemen's Land invasion, Black War, and Palawa removal", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "genocide-linked clearance", "dates": "1803–1847", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 150, "zoomFloor": 72, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Southeastern Australian mainland", "lon": 145.2, "lat": -38 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1803, "end": 1847 } ], "story": "Settler expansion triggered war and massacre; colonial authorities then attempted military sweeps and removed surviving Palawa people to offshore settlements where mortality remained severe.", "displaced": [ "Palawa peoples subjected to killing, abduction, territorial invasion, and removal to Bass Strait islands" ], "settlers": [ "British colonial government, soldiers, settlers, roving parties, and sealers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: genocide-linked clearance. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "newcastle_massacres", "nma_blackline", "reynolds_frontier", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Tasmania", "lon": 147, "lat": -42 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Britain & Ireland", "lon": -2.5, "lat": 53.8 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "australia-port-phillip-southeast-pastoral-frontier", "name": "Pastoral invasion of Port Phillip and southeastern Australia", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1834–c. 1870", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 200, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1834, "end": 1870 } ], "story": "Unauthorized and then state-sanctioned pastoral settlement occupied grasslands and water, while violence, disease, reserves, and gold-rush growth dispossessed Aboriginal nations across the southeast.", "displaced": [ "Kulin nations and Aboriginal peoples across Victoria and southeastern South Australia" ], "settlers": [ "Pastoral squatters, colonial governments, police, and gold-rush migrants" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "newcastle_massacres", "mabo_hca", "reynolds_frontier", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Southeastern Australia", "lon": 145, "lat": -37 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Britain & Ireland", "lon": -2.5, "lat": 53.8 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "australia-queensland-northern-frontier", "name": "Queensland and northern Australian pastoral and mining frontiers", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "genocide-linked clearance", "dates": "c. 1840–1930", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 250, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1840, "end": 1930 } ], "story": "Pastoral and mining occupation spread through organized punitive patrols, massacre, food and water seizure, coerced labor, and later reserve and protection systems.", "displaced": [ "Aboriginal nations across Queensland and northern Australia" ], "settlers": [ "Pastoralists, miners, colonial and state governments, Native Police, and settler militias" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: genocide-linked clearance. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "newcastle_massacres", "mabo_hca", "reynolds_frontier", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Queensland and northern Australia", "lon": 142, "lat": -20 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Britain & Ireland", "lon": -2.5, "lat": 53.8 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "australia-western-australia-frontiers", "name": "Western Australian settlement frontiers and Aboriginal dispossession", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1829–c. 1930", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 260, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1829, "end": 1930 } ], "story": "Settlement around Swan River and later pastoral and mineral frontiers seized Aboriginal land and imposed punitive violence, labor coercion, imprisonment, missions, and reserve systems.", "displaced": [ "Noongar and Aboriginal nations of the southwest, northwest, and interior" ], "settlers": [ "Swan River colonists, pastoralists, miners, colonial police, and Western Australian authorities" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "newcastle_massacres", "mabo_hca", "reynolds_frontier", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Western Australia", "lon": 119, "lat": -27 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Britain & Ireland", "lon": -2.5, "lat": 53.8 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "new-zealand-company-crown-colonization", "name": "New Zealand Company and Crown settlement in Aotearoa", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1839–1860", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 210, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1839, "end": 1860 } ], "story": "Organized migration created new settler towns before and after the Treaty of Waitangi, while ambiguous and fraudulent purchases generated disputes over title, sovereignty, and reserve promises.", "displaced": [ "Māori iwi and hapū facing disputed purchases, settler towns, and Crown sovereignty claims" ], "settlers": [ "New Zealand Company, British Crown, land purchasers, and British and Irish settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "nzhistory_land", "waitangi_tribunal", "teara_population", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Aotearoa New Zealand", "lon": 173, "lat": -41 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Britain & Ireland", "lon": -2.5, "lat": 53.8 }, { "name": "Australian colonies", "lon": 151.2, "lat": -33.9 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "new-zealand-wars-confiscation-military-settlement", "name": "New Zealand Wars, land confiscation, and military settlement", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1860–1881", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 170, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1860, "end": 1881 } ], "story": "Colonial armies invaded Māori-controlled districts, confiscated large territories under punitive legislation, and settled soldiers and civilians on seized land while resistance continued.", "displaced": [ "Taranaki iwi, Waikato-Tainui, Ngāi Te Rangi, Tūhoe, and other Māori communities" ], "settlers": [ "British imperial and colonial forces, New Zealand government, settler militias, and military settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "omalley_waikato", "teara_nzwars", "nzhistory_land", "waitangi_tribunal" ], "targets": [ { "name": "North Island, Aotearoa New Zealand", "lon": 175, "lat": -38.8 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Britain & Ireland", "lon": -2.5, "lat": 53.8 }, { "name": "Australian colonies", "lon": 151.2, "lat": -33.9 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "new-zealand-south-island-ngai-tahu-dispossession", "name": "Crown purchasing and Ngāi Tahu dispossession in the South Island", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "settler colonization", "dates": "1844–c. 1900", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 180, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1844, "end": 1900 } ], "story": "A small number of Crown purchases transferred most of the South Island to settler control while promised reserves, schools, hospitals, and access to food-gathering places were inadequately provided.", "displaced": [ "Ngāi Tahu and other South Island Māori communities whose land and mahinga kai access were lost" ], "settlers": [ "New Zealand Company, Crown purchase agents, provincial governments, and British settlers" ], "note": "Worldwide audit addition. Mechanism: settler colonization. Evidence confidence: high.", "sources": [ "nzhistory_land", "waitangi_tribunal", "teara_population", "handbook" ], "targets": [ { "name": "South Island, Aotearoa New Zealand", "lon": 171, "lat": -44 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Britain & Ireland", "lon": -2.5, "lat": 53.8 }, { "name": "Australian colonies", "lon": 151.2, "lat": -33.9 } ], "evidence": "documentary, archaeological, demographic, or oral evidence as cited", "auditStatus": "added — replaces a defective wrapper", "auditConfidence": "high" }, { "id": "prospective-jewish-departure-following-the-1955-pogrom-1955-1957", "name": "Jewish departure after the September 1955 pogrom", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "pogrom violence and a bounded emigration surge", "affectedLabel": "Affected / departing", "actorLabel": "Actors / institutions", "dates": "1955–1957", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 125, "viewPadding": 22, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1955, "end": 1957, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1955, "end": 1955, "label": "6–7 September pogrom and immediate emigration inquiries" }, { "start": 1956, "end": 1957, "label": "Elevated departures to Israel" } ] } ], "story": "The attacks of 6–7 September 1955 damaged Jewish as well as Greek and Armenian property in Istanbul and İzmir and were followed by new threats and a sharp rise in Jewish interest in leaving. Recorded Turkish Jewish arrivals in Israel rose from 339 in 1955 to 1,710 in 1956 and 1,911 in 1957.", "contested": "The annual arrival totals do not show that every migrant was personally attacked or that the pogrom was each person’s sole reason for leaving. The atlas therefore shows a bounded post-pogrom surge, not a universal state expulsion.", "displaced": [ "Turkish Jews affected by the September pogrom and later anti-Jewish incidents", "Turkish Jewish emigrants arriving in Israel in 1956–1957" ], "settlers": [ "Mobs attacking minority property", "Turkish government, police, and martial-law authorities", "Turkish Jewish households and Israeli migration organizations" ], "sources": [ "v5_turkey_jewish_departure_1955_1957" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Israel", "lon": 34.82, "lat": 32.08 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Istanbul and Turkey", "lon": 28.9582, "lat": 41.01 } ], "evidence": "published historical studies and recorded annual arrival totals" }, { "id": "prospective-libyan-jewish-remnant-expulsion-property-sequestration-1967-1970", "name": "Expulsion and property confiscation of Libya’s Jewish remnant", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "violence-driven flight, state confiscation, and final expulsion", "affectedLabel": "Displaced / expelled", "actorLabel": "Actors / authorities", "dates": "1967–1970", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 145, "viewPadding": 24, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1967, "end": 1970, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1967, "end": 1967, "label": "Renewed violence and near-total departure" }, { "start": 1970, "end": 1970, "label": "Asset confiscation and final expulsion" } ] } ], "story": "Renewed anti-Jewish violence in 1967 drove almost all Jews then remaining in Libya to Italy, Israel, and elsewhere. Some returned briefly to sell or recover property. In 1970 the post-1969 government confiscated Jewish assets and completed the expulsion of the remnant.", "contested": "The opened source does not provide a household roster, a complete asset inventory, or a destination for every person. This event is limited to the 1967–1970 remnant; it does not absorb the larger and more mixed 1949–1952 emigration.", "displaced": [ "Jews resident in Libya during the 1967 crisis", "People who initially stayed or briefly returned before the 1970 confiscation and final expulsion" ], "settlers": [ "Perpetrators of the 1967 anti-Jewish violence", "Libyan state authorities under the post-1969 regime" ], "sources": [ "v5_libya_jewish_remnant_1967_1970" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Rome / Italy", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 }, { "name": "Israel", "lon": 34.82, "lat": 32.08 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Tripoli", "lon": 13.19, "lat": 32.89, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, { "name": "Benghazi", "lon": 20.114, "lat": 32.12, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "evidence": "published historical synthesis and documentary chronology" }, { "id": "prospective-1967-palestinian-cross-border-war-exodus", "name": "Palestinian cross-border exodus and restricted return in 1967", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "wartime flight, cross-border displacement, and restricted return", "affectedLabel": "Displaced / departing", "actorLabel": "Belligerents / authorities", "dates": "June–August 1967", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 48, "viewPadding": 20, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1967, "end": 1967, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1967, "end": 1967, "label": "June–August west-to-east crossing" }, { "start": 1967, "end": 1967, "label": "August document- and security-screened return process" } ] } ], "story": "During June, July, and August 1967, about 200,000 people—including at least 100,000 registered refugees—crossed the River Jordan from the West Bank to the East Bank. A short document- and security-screened return process admitted only a small fraction before the main arrangements ended on 31 August.", "contested": "UNRWA reported disagreement over whether some local village departures were forced and could not assign a forced share to the cross-border cohort. Later settlement, demolition, and internal-displacement processes are separate events and are not folded into this case.", "displaced": [ "Approximately 200,000 people crossing from the West Bank to the East Bank of Jordan", "At least 100,000 UNRWA-registered refugees within that cohort" ], "settlers": [ "Israeli armed forces and return-permit authorities", "Jordanian authorities, the ICRC, and UNRWA as receiving and relief actors" ], "sources": [ "v5_palestinian_exodus_1967" ], "targets": [ { "name": "East Bank / Jordan", "lon": 35.91, "lat": 31.95 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "West Bank", "lon": 35.22, "lat": 31.78 } ], "placeGloss": "The short route crosses the River Jordan from the West Bank to the East Bank; the narrow frame keeps both sides visible.", "evidence": "contemporaneous UNRWA reporting, including crossing and return figures" }, { "id": "prospective-suez-era-jewish-expulsion-and-departure-from-egypt-1956-1957", "name": "Suez-era detention, expulsions, property seizures, and Jewish departure from Egypt", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "wartime detention, expulsions, property sequestration, and pressured departure", "affectedLabel": "Detained / expelled / departing", "actorLabel": "Authorities / belligerents", "dates": "1956–1957", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 108, "viewPadding": 24, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1956, "end": 1957, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1956, "end": 1956, "label": "War-triggered detention, expulsion, and sequestration" }, { "start": 1956, "end": 1957, "label": "Concentrated departure from 22 November to 15 March" }, { "start": 1957, "end": 1957, "label": "Partial rescission and property return on 27 April" } ] } ], "story": "After the British-French-Israeli attack of 29 October 1956, Egyptian authorities detained about 1,000 Jews. Jews were also affected by expulsions of British and French nationals; about 500 Jews of other nationalities were expelled; roughly 460 Jewish-owned businesses were sequestered; and many people lost jobs or faced citizenship pressure. The World Jewish Congress recorded 14,102 Jewish departures between 22 November 1956 and 15 March 1957, most of them to Israel according to Joel Beinin.", "contested": "The detainee, nationality, expulsion, business, job-loss, and departure counts overlap and must not be added. The military property-seizure proclamation was rescinded on 27 April 1957 for Jews who were not British or French citizens, and some property was returned. Slower migration after mid-1957 is aftermath rather than part of this bounded event.", "displaced": [ "Egyptian Jews detained, expelled, deprived of work or property, or pressured to leave during the Suez crisis", "14,102 recorded Jewish departures during the peak interval; categories overlap" ], "settlers": [ "Egyptian detention, expulsion, nationality, employment, and sequestration authorities", "British, French, and Israeli forces as the war trigger, not the administrators of Egyptian measures" ], "sources": [ "v5_egypt_suez_jewish_departure_1956_1957" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Israel — documented majority destination", "lon": 34.82, "lat": 32.08 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Cairo", "lon": 31.2357, "lat": 30.0444, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, { "name": "Alexandria", "lon": 29.9187, "lat": 31.2001, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "placeGloss": "The segmented routes show Israel as the documented majority destination in the peak 1956–1957 departure, not a complete person-by-person destination census.", "evidence": "published historical synthesis drawing on contemporary records, with exact peak-departure and partial-reversal dates" }, { "id": "prospective-egyptian-jewish-wartime-detention-and-compelled-departure-1967-1971", "name": "Wartime detention and release-linked Jewish departure from Egypt", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "wartime arrest, harsh detention, citizenship-tiered release, and release-linked exit", "affectedLabel": "Detained / departing", "actorLabel": "Authorities / intermediaries", "dates": "1967–1971", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 112, "viewPadding": 24, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1967, "end": 1971, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1967, "end": 1968, "label": "Wartime arrests and departure of foreign citizens" }, { "start": 1969, "end": 1970, "label": "Resumed small-group release of stateless detainees" }, { "start": 1971, "end": 1971, "label": "Final citizen detainees and families leave under no-return conditions" } ] } ], "story": "In the first hours of the June 1967 war, President Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered arrests that imprisoned about 500 Egyptian Jewish men. Foreign citizens were released and left during 1967–1968; releases of stateless and Egyptian citizens resumed in April 1969. The final group—about 80 Egyptian-citizen men—and their families were permitted to leave only after the prisoners promised to renounce Egyptian citizenship and not return. All prisoners had been freed by March 1971.", "contested": "The evidence does not provide a complete detainee or family roster, prison assignments, individual departure dates, or final destinations. Published estimates of the Jewish population remaining in Egypt before the arrests differ, so the proportion arrested is unresolved. France was a documented receiving and negotiating channel—102 Jews had reached Paris by 2 May 1969—but the mapped route does not claim that Paris was everyone’s final home. The explicit citizenship-renunciation and no-return condition is documented for the final group of about 80 Egyptian-citizen men and their families, not automatically for every detainee.", "displaced": [ "About 500 Egyptian Jewish men arrested during and after the June 1967 war", "Family members whose departure accompanied the staged releases" ], "settlers": [ "President Nasser and Egyptian military, security, foreign-ministry, and interior-ministry authorities", "French, Spanish, Italian, Greek, ICRC, UNHCR, and Israeli intermediaries in the release negotiations" ], "sources": [ "v5_egypt_jewish_detention_departure_1967_1971" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Paris / France — documented release channel", "lon": 2.3522, "lat": 48.8566 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Egyptian prisons and communities — schematic", "lon": 31.2357, "lat": 30.0444, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "placeGloss": "The route to Paris represents a documented receiving channel and the 102 arrivals reported by 2 May 1969; ultimate destinations were broader and incompletely resolved.", "evidence": "archival historical study with staged-release dates, citizenship categories, and a documented Paris arrival count" }, { "id": "prospective-saint-pierre-miquelon-british-deportation-1778", "name": "British deportation from Saint-Pierre and Miquelon", "region": "North Atlantic", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "British seizure, resident deportation, and settlement destruction", "affectedLabel": "Residents / refugees", "actorLabel": "Forces / authorities", "dates": "1778–1783", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 76, "viewPadding": 15, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "markerScale": 0.62, "periods": [ { "start": 1778, "end": 1783, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1778, "end": 1778, "label": "British seizure, deportation to France, and destruction of homes" }, { "start": 1783, "end": 1783, "label": "French restoration and permitted resident return" } ] } ], "story": "In September 1778, a British expedition under Newfoundland governor John Montagu seized Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. The inhabitants were sent to France and their homes destroyed. Personal refugee files document property losses and families living in French ports. The islands were restored to France in 1783 and residents were allowed to return, closing this removal interval before the separate 1793 seizure.", "contested": "The opened evidence does not provide a complete deportee count, household roster, vessel-by-vessel route, inventory of losses, or return rate. The route therefore ends at a broad French Channel receiving region rather than claiming one destination for every person. The 1783 restoration and permission to return are the event boundary, not proof that every displaced resident returned.", "displaced": [ "French and Acadian-background residents of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon sent to France after the 1778 seizure", "Households whose homes, fishing establishments, and possessions were destroyed or abandoned" ], "settlers": [ "Newfoundland governor John Montagu and the British expedition", "British imperial authorities administering the wartime seizure and removal" ], "sources": [ "v5_saint_pierre_war_evacuation", "v5_saint_pierre_refugee_files" ], "targets": [ { "name": "French Channel ports — broad receiving region", "lon": -1.58, "lat": 48.84 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Saint-Pierre", "lon": -56.18, "lat": 46.78, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, { "name": "Miquelon–Langlade", "lon": -56.36, "lat": 47.1, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "placeGloss": "The transatlantic routes show France as the documented deportation destination. Their endpoint represents the French Channel ports named across the refugee files, not a complete destination census.", "evidence": "historical synthesis and archival refugee-file study with direct evidence of removal to France, losses, and intended 1783 re-establishment" }, { "id": "prospective-saint-pierre-miquelon-british-deportation-1793-1815", "name": "Second British deportation of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon", "region": "North Atlantic", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "British seizure, phased deportation, fisheries occupation, and wartime depopulation", "affectedLabel": "Prisoners / deportees", "actorLabel": "Forces / authorities", "dates": "1793–1815", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 70, "viewPadding": 15, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "markerScale": 0.66, "periods": [ { "start": 1793, "end": 1815, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1793, "end": 1793, "label": "British seizure and removal of officials, troops, and seasonal fishermen" }, { "start": 1794, "end": 1794, "label": "Evacuation of the 950 resident inhabitants" }, { "start": 1796, "end": 1815, "label": "Town destruction and deserted interval before the 1816 return" } ] } ], "story": "A British expedition from Halifax seized Saint-Pierre and Miquelon in May 1793. James Ogilvie returned to Halifax with 570 officials, troops, and fishermen as prisoners. The 950 resident inhabitants remained until orders removed them in 1794 to Nova Scotia and the Channel Islands. English fishermen then used the islands’ facilities; when a French squadron appeared in 1796, the English withdrew and the French destroyed the town. The islands remained deserted until French possession and resident settlement were re-established in 1816.", "contested": "The 570 prisoners removed in 1793 and the 950 resident inhabitants removed in 1794 are different measured groups and are not added into a single population estimate. The sources do not provide a complete household roster, destination allocation, property-loss inventory, or return rate. Landry’s introduction prints 1791 for the second conquest; the event uses 1793 because Janzen, the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, and the French overseas archives independently support that date. The end year 1815 is the last full deserted year before repopulation in 1816.", "displaced": [ "570 officials, troops, and seasonal fishermen taken to Halifax in 1793", "950 resident inhabitants ordered removed in 1794 to Nova Scotia and the Channel Islands" ], "settlers": [ "James Ogilvie, Captain William Affleck, and the British expedition and authorities", "English fishermen using island facilities after the removals", "Rear-Admiral de Richery and the French squadron responsible for the 1796 destruction" ], "sources": [ "v5_saint_pierre_war_evacuation", "v5_saint_pierre_anom_chronology", "v5_saint_pierre_ogilvie_dcb", "v5_saint_pierre_refugee_files" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Halifax / Nova Scotia", "lon": -63.5903, "lat": 44.7096 }, { "name": "Channel Islands — documented destination region", "lon": -2.5853, "lat": 49.4554 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Saint-Pierre", "lon": -56.18, "lat": 46.78, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, { "name": "Miquelon–Langlade", "lon": -56.36, "lat": 47.1, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "placeGloss": "Halifax is the documented 1793 prisoner destination. The second endpoint represents the Channel Islands as a documented 1794 destination region; the sources do not allocate every resident between Nova Scotia and the islands.", "evidence": "independent historical syntheses, an official archival chronology, and biographical research identifying the phased removals, receiving regions, and deserted interval" }, { "id": "prospective-circassian-danube-serbian-border-settlement", "name": "Ottoman Circassian settlement on the Vidin–Niš–Sofia frontier", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "state-directed refugee placement and strategic frontier settlement", "affectedLabel": "Refugees / affected communities", "actorLabel": "Authorities / settlers", "dates": "1862–1867", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 47, "viewPadding": 18, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1862, "end": 1867, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1862, "end": 1864, "label": "Refugee arrivals and frontier allocation, peaking in 1864" }, { "start": 1864, "end": 1867, "label": "Village establishment and initial resource allocation" } ] } ], "story": "Between 1862 and 1867, the Ottoman Refugee Commission and provincial authorities placed Circassian refugee households in new villages across the Vidin, Niš, and Sofia frontier districts. Many arrived through the Black Sea ports of Varna and Constanța. The state intended the settlement belt to reinforce Ottoman authority and form a strategic barrier near Serbia. Local Christian and Muslim residents supplied transport, housing, provisions, and other resources, and some land was reassigned.", "contested": "The available figures describe the Danube Vilayet as a whole or give example village sizes; they do not establish a population total for this frontier tract and are not added together. Local burdens and land contention are documented, but general resident removal is not. The interval describes arrival and initial allocation, not the lifetime of the resulting villages, and post-1877 secondary migration is a separate process.", "displaced": [ "Circassian refugee households expelled from or fleeing the northwest Caucasus", "Local Christian and Muslim communities supplying land, transport, housing, and provisions" ], "settlers": [ "Ottoman Refugee Commission and provincial, military, and local authorities", "Circassian households assigned to the Vidin–Niš–Sofia frontier belt" ], "sources": [ "v5_circassian_danube_vilayet" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Vidin district", "lon": 22.87, "lat": 43.99 }, { "name": "Niš district", "lon": 21.9, "lat": 43.32 }, { "name": "Sofia district", "lon": 23.32, "lat": 42.7 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Northwest Caucasus — broad refugee homeland", "lon": 39.55, "lat": 44.4 } ], "placeGloss": "The map connects the refugees’ broad northwest-Caucasus homeland to the documented frontier destination belt. Varna and Constanța were important transit ports, but the lines do not claim a household-by-household route census.", "evidence": "specialist historical study documenting the arrival interval, Ottoman administration, transit ports, frontier districts, strategic rationale, village placement, and local provisioning burdens" }, { "id": "prospective-circassian-danube-dobruja-agricultural-settlement", "name": "Ottoman Circassian agricultural settlement along the Danube and in Dobruja", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "state-directed refugee placement, farmland allocation, and land surveying", "affectedLabel": "Refugees / affected communities", "actorLabel": "Authorities / settlers", "dates": "1862–1867", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 49, "viewPadding": 18, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1862, "end": 1867, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1862, "end": 1865, "label": "Refugee arrivals and agricultural village placement" }, { "start": 1865, "end": 1866, "label": "Land mapping and allocation, especially in Dobruja" }, { "start": 1867, "end": 1867, "label": "End of the bounded initial-placement interval" } ] } ], "story": "From 1862 to 1867, Ottoman authorities placed Circassian refugee households in new villages and smaller groups in existing settlements along the Danube near Lom, Nikopol, and Svishtov and in Dobruja. Officials allocated farmland and undertook land mapping in 1865–1866, especially in Dobruja. Local Christian and Muslim agricultural communities supplied land, housing, provisions, and labor to the program.", "contested": "The source reports only vilayet-wide totals, not a population or durable village roster for this agricultural tract. The 8,000 Abkhazians reported arriving in the vilayet in 1867 cannot be assigned to these destinations. Documented land, labor, and provisioning burdens do not by themselves prove that local residents were removed. This is a geographic and land-use branch of the same wider administration, not a claim of a wholly separate bureaucracy.", "displaced": [ "Circassian refugees placed in the Danube corridor and Dobruja", "Local Christian and Muslim agricultural communities whose land, housing, provisions, or labor supported the program" ], "settlers": [ "Ottoman Refugee Commission, Danube Vilayet authorities, and land-survey officials", "Circassian refugee households assigned to agricultural settlements" ], "sources": [ "v5_circassian_danube_vilayet" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Lom", "lon": 23.24, "lat": 43.81 }, { "name": "Nikopol", "lon": 24.9, "lat": 43.7 }, { "name": "Svishtov", "lon": 25.35, "lat": 43.62 }, { "name": "Dobruja agricultural tract", "lon": 28.1, "lat": 44.2 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Northwest Caucasus — broad refugee homeland", "lon": 39.55, "lat": 44.4 } ], "placeGloss": "The map shows the broad northwest-Caucasus homeland and the documented Danube and Dobruja destination tract. Black Sea transit is documented, but the lines do not assign every household to a specific port or village.", "evidence": "specialist historical study documenting the arrival interval, destination corridor, village forms, agricultural allocation, Dobruja land survey, and local provisioning obligations" }, { "id": "prospective-circassian-uzunyayla-collective-settlement", "name": "Ottoman settlement of North Caucasian refugees in Uzunyayla", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "collective state-directed refugee placement and land allocation", "affectedLabel": "Refugees / affected communities", "actorLabel": "Authorities / settlers", "dates": "1860–1870", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 38, "viewPadding": 17, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1860, "end": 1870, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1860, "end": 1864, "label": "Collective placement on the Uzunyayla plateau" }, { "start": 1864, "end": 1870, "label": "Initial consolidation and continuing land conflict" } ] } ], "story": "During the 1860s, Ottoman authorities collectively settled Circassian and other North Caucasian refugee cohorts on the Uzunyayla plateau using miri, vakıf, and land classified as vacant. The principal placement was reported complete in 1864. Afshar pasture was assigned to newcomers, conflict followed, and the fields and property of settled cultivators were also affected as the new villages took shape.", "contested": "The 1860–1870 span marks settlement formation, not uninterrupted migration for a decade. Nearly 3,000 households refers to Sivas province rather than securely to Uzunyayla; 318 households and 2,201 people describe an unsettled remainder at one checkpoint and are not added to it. The source does not provide a complete household-to-village register or prove that every named cohort remained throughout the interval.", "displaced": [ "Circassian and other North Caucasian refugee cohorts assigned to Uzunyayla", "Afshar pastoralists and settled cultivators whose pasture, fields, property, water, or materials were affected" ], "settlers": [ "Ottoman central, Refugee Commission, Aziziye, and Kayseri authorities", "North Caucasian refugee households placed in collective settlements" ], "sources": [ "v5_circassian_uzunyayla" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Uzunyayla plateau", "lon": 35.95, "lat": 38.78 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Northwest Caucasus — broad refugee homeland", "lon": 39.55, "lat": 44.4 } ], "placeGloss": "The broad route connects the refugees’ Caucasus homeland to Uzunyayla. The source does not support a more detailed intermediate itinerary or a village-by-village route map.", "evidence": "specialist historical study documenting collective placement, land categories, the 1864 milestone, cohort composition, and conflict over pasture, fields, and property" }, { "id": "prospective-circassian-wadi-al-sir-settlement-1880", "name": "Circassian settlement at Wadi al-Sir", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "refugee village foundation within Ottoman land-allotment and registration institutions", "affectedLabel": "Refugees / affected communities", "actorLabel": "Authorities / settlers", "dates": "1880", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 57, "viewPadding": 19, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1880, "end": 1880, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1880, "end": 1880, "label": "Circassian village foundation at Wadi al-Sir" } ] } ], "story": "Circassian refugees founded Wadi al-Sir in 1880 within the Ottoman system of refugee settlement, land allotment, miri registration, and agricultural development in the Balqa. The resulting village entered a regional landscape of pasture claims, cultivation, and later property exchange. The state's role operated through law, land allocation, and infrastructure rather than a documented direct removal order against a predecessor community.", "contested": "The ultimate northwest-Caucasus origin is documented, but the settlers’ immediate route may have passed through Anatolia or the post-1877 Balkans and is unresolved. Later records identify Bzhedugh and Abzakh quarters but do not prove that both groups jointly founded the village in 1880. No Wadi-specific predecessor community, forced removal, village population, or direct command placement is established; Transjordan-wide totals and land-price figures are not used as local population counts.", "displaced": [ "Circassian refugees establishing Wadi al-Sir", "Regional Balqa land and pasture claimants affected by registration and cultivation; no named removed predecessor is documented" ], "settlers": [ "Ottoman refugee and Balqa land authorities", "Circassian refugee households founding the village" ], "sources": [ "v5_circassian_balqa" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Wadi al-Sir", "lon": 35.82, "lat": 31.95 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Northwest Caucasus — ultimate origin; immediate route unresolved", "lon": 39.55, "lat": 44.4 } ], "placeGloss": "The long line shows only the settlers’ ultimate northwest-Caucasus origin. It does not claim a direct journey or choose between possible intermediate residence in Anatolia and the Balkans.", "evidence": "specialist historical study documenting the 1880 foundation, Ottoman refugee and miri-land framework, registration, cultivation, and later property evidence" }, { "id": "prospective-bikini-nuclear-test-displacement", "name": "Bikini nuclear-test displacement and return", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "nuclear-test land clearance, serial compelled relocation, unsafe return, and renewed removal", "affectedLabel": "Removed / returning", "actorLabel": "Authorities / carriers", "dates": "1946–1978", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 30, "viewPadding": 14, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "markerScale": 0.52, "periods": [ { "start": 1946, "end": 1978, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1946, "end": 1946, "label": "About 167 Bikini people removed to Rongerik before nuclear testing" }, { "start": 1948, "end": 1958, "label": "Serial relocation through Kwajalein, Kili, and Jaluit" }, { "start": 1967, "end": 1971, "label": "Federal safety assurance followed by partial return to Bikini" }, { "start": 1978, "end": 1978, "label": "Renewed removal to Kili and Ejit after dangerous radioactivity was found" } ] } ], "story": "United States authorities removed about 167 Bikini people from their atoll in March 1946 so it could be used for nuclear testing. Rongerik could not support the community, and later moves carried people through Kwajalein, Kili, and Jaluit. After a 1967 federal safety assurance, some residents returned to Bikini beginning in 1971. Monitoring later found dangerous radioactivity, and the returnees were removed again in 1978 to Kili and Ejit.", "contested": "The figure of about 167 belongs only to the March 1946 removal. The later moves, returns, and renewed removals involve overlapping subsets whose complete rosters and totals are not available, so they are not added together. The 1967 assurance preceded a return; it does not establish that Bikini was safe. The map shows only documented movement links and does not assign an exact route to every person.", "displaced": [ "About 167 Bikini people removed in March 1946", "Overlapping later groups moved among Rongerik, Kwajalein, Kili, Jaluit, Bikini, and Ejit" ], "settlers": [ "United States Navy, occupying administration, and Trust Territory authorities responsible for testing and removal", "United States radiological and resettlement authorities responsible for safety assurances, monitoring, and renewed removal" ], "sources": [ "v5_marshall_nuclear_displacement_2025" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Rongerik", "lon": 167.5159, "lat": 11.3789 }, { "name": "Kwajalein", "lon": 167.735, "lat": 8.716 }, { "name": "Kili", "lon": 169.1211, "lat": 5.6439 }, { "name": "Jaluit", "lon": 169.64, "lat": 5.92 }, { "name": "Ejit", "lon": 171.3505, "lat": 7.1249 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Bikini homeland", "lon": 165.4935, "lat": 11.6738, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Bikini", "lon": 165.4935, "lat": 11.6738 }, "to": { "name": "Rongerik", "lon": 167.5159, "lat": 11.3789 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Rongerik", "lon": 167.5159, "lat": 11.3789 }, "to": { "name": "Kwajalein", "lon": 167.735, "lat": 8.716 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Kwajalein", "lon": 167.735, "lat": 8.716 }, "to": { "name": "Kili", "lon": 169.1211, "lat": 5.6439 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Kili", "lon": 169.1211, "lat": 5.6439 }, "to": { "name": "Jaluit", "lon": 169.64, "lat": 5.92 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Bikini", "lon": 165.4935, "lat": 11.6738 }, "to": { "name": "Kili", "lon": 169.1211, "lat": 5.6439 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Bikini", "lon": 165.4935, "lat": 11.6738 }, "to": { "name": "Ejit", "lon": 171.3505, "lat": 7.1249 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "The segmented lines follow documented removal links between the Bikini homeland and receiving places. They summarize the community chain rather than claim one itinerary for every person; the 1971 return is described but not given an invented point of departure.", "evidence": "an authoritative recent United Nations synthesis with separate paragraphs for the initial removal, serial relocations, safety assurance, partial return, and renewed removal" }, { "id": "prospective-enewetak-nuclear-test-displacement", "name": "Enewetak nuclear-test displacement and return", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "nuclear-test requisition, compelled removal to Ujelang, cleanup, and organized homeland return", "affectedLabel": "Removed / returning", "actorLabel": "Authorities / community", "dates": "1947–1980", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 20, "viewPadding": 10, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "markerScale": 0.58, "periods": [ { "start": 1947, "end": 1980, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1947, "end": 1947, "label": "Enewetak polity removed to Ujelang for nuclear testing" }, { "start": 1977, "end": 1980, "label": "Cleanup, decontamination, and resettlement preparation" }, { "start": 1980, "end": 1980, "label": "Organized return to Enewetak, Medren, and Japtan" } ] } ], "story": "United States authorities requisitioned Enewetak Atoll for nuclear testing and moved the Enewetak polity to Ujelang in December 1947. The community endured prolonged exile and petitioned to return. After cleanup and decontamination from 1977 to 1980, Enewetak people returned to Enewetak, Medren, and Japtan within their southern-atoll homeland.", "contested": "The United Nations report gives one combined 500-person return figure for the Enewetak and Enjebi polities. It does not provide an Enewetak-only count, and no portion of the shared figure is assigned here. The record also does not give a complete household roster or island-by-island duration of return.", "displaced": [ "Members of the Enewetak polity removed to Ujelang", "Enewetak people returning in 1980 to islands within their southern-atoll homeland" ], "settlers": [ "United States Navy and Trust Territory authorities responsible for requisition and removal", "United States defense, energy, and interior agencies responsible for cleanup, radiological assessment, and resettlement" ], "sources": [ "v5_marshall_nuclear_displacement_2025" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Ujelang exile site", "lon": 160.9858, "lat": 9.7685 }, { "name": "Enewetak southern return area", "lon": 162.3703, "lat": 11.4008 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Enewetak southern homeland", "lon": 162.3333, "lat": 11.3444, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Enewetak southern homeland", "lon": 162.3333, "lat": 11.3444 }, "to": { "name": "Ujelang", "lon": 160.9858, "lat": 9.7685 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Ujelang", "lon": 160.9858, "lat": 9.7685 }, "to": { "name": "Enewetak, Medren, and Japtan", "lon": 162.3703, "lat": 11.4008 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The outward segment shows the 1947 removal to Ujelang; the return segment ends in the Enewetak polity’s documented 1980 southern-atoll return area. Enjebi’s separate homeland and unresolved return are not folded into this map.", "evidence": "United Nations and United States government records distinguishing the Enewetak polity, the December 1947 move to Ujelang, the 1977–1980 cleanup, and the 1980 southern-atoll return" }, { "id": "prospective-enjebi-nuclear-test-displacement-and-land-claim", "name": "Enjebi nuclear-test displacement and blocked homeland return", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "nuclear-test requisition, compelled removal to Ujelang, resettlement outside the homeland, and blocked homeland return", "affectedLabel": "Removed / claimants", "actorLabel": "Authorities / community", "dates": "from 1947", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 20, "viewPadding": 10, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "markerScale": 0.58, "periods": [ { "start": 1947, "end": 1947, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1947, "end": 1947, "label": "Enjebi polity removed to Ujelang for nuclear testing" }, { "start": 1979, "end": 1979, "label": "Community vote to return to the Enjebi homeland" }, { "start": 1980, "end": 1980, "label": "Resettlement only on islands within the Enewetak polity’s homeland" }, { "start": 2025, "end": 2025, "label": "United Nations report records continuing displacement from Enjebi" } ] } ], "story": "United States authorities removed the distinct Enjebi polity from its northern Enewetak Atoll homeland to Ujelang in December 1947. Enjebi people voted in 1979 to return home, but the combined 1980 resettlement placed them only on decontaminated islands within the Enewetak polity’s southern homeland. Federal agencies disagreed about Enjebi’s habitability, Congress did not fund homeland resettlement, and the United Nations reported in 2025 that the Enjebi people remained displaced.", "contested": "No terminal year is supported. The combined 500-person 1980 return figure covers both the Enewetak and Enjebi polities and cannot be converted into an Enjebi count. The map shows resettlement outside the Enjebi homeland and leaves the attempted homeland return visibly incomplete; it does not imply that Enjebi was restored.", "displaced": [ "The Enjebi polity removed from its northern-atoll homeland to Ujelang", "Enjebi people resettled only on islands in the Enewetak polity’s homeland while maintaining a homeland-return claim" ], "settlers": [ "United States Navy and Trust Territory authorities responsible for requisition and removal", "United States defense, energy, and interior agencies and Congress as cleanup, habitability, and funding actors" ], "sources": [ "v5_marshall_nuclear_displacement_2025" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Ujelang exile site", "lon": 160.9858, "lat": 9.7685 }, { "name": "Resettlement outside the Enjebi homeland", "lon": 162.3703, "lat": 11.4008 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Enjebi homeland", "lon": 162.2403, "lat": 11.6636, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Enjebi homeland", "lon": 162.2403, "lat": 11.6636 }, "to": { "name": "Ujelang", "lon": 160.9858, "lat": 9.7685 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Ujelang", "lon": 160.9858, "lat": 9.7685 }, "to": { "name": "Enewetak-polity islands", "lon": 162.3703, "lat": 11.4008 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The map shows the 1947 removal to Ujelang and the 1980 resettlement on islands within the Enewetak polity’s homeland. There is deliberately no completed line back to Enjebi: the homeland-return claim remained unresolved.", "evidence": "United Nations and United States government records distinguishing the Enjebi polity and homeland, the 1947 move, the 1979 vote, the constrained 1980 resettlement, and continuing displacement" }, { "id": "prospective-rongelap-and-ailinginae-fallout-evacuation-and-return-chain", "name": "Castle Bravo displacement of the Rongelapese", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "fallout exposure, delayed evacuation, unsafe return authorization, and community-requested re-evacuation", "affectedLabel": "Exposed / displaced", "actorLabel": "Authorities / carriers", "dates": "1954–1985", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 28, "viewPadding": 13, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "markerScale": 0.54, "periods": [ { "start": 1954, "end": 1985, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1954, "end": 1954, "label": "Castle Bravo exposure and delayed United States evacuation" }, { "start": 1954, "end": 1957, "label": "Displacement through Kwajalein and Ejit" }, { "start": 1957, "end": 1957, "label": "United States-authorized return to Rongelap" }, { "start": 1985, "end": 1985, "label": "Community-requested evacuation to Mejatto carried by Greenpeace" } ] } ], "story": "Castle Bravo fallout exposed 82 Rongelapese on Rongelap and Ailinginae in March 1954. United States authorities evacuated them only after a delay, first to Kwajalein and then to Ejit. A government-authorized return to Rongelap followed in 1957, joined by about 200 Rongelapese who had been absent during the test. After later health concerns and unsuccessful relocation requests, the community sought evacuation; Greenpeace carried the 300 remaining residents from Rongelap to Mejatto in 1985.", "contested": "The 82 exposed residents, about 200 additional 1957 returnees, and 300 people moved in 1985 are phase-specific, overlapping figures and must never be summed. The sources do not provide a complete person-level roster or identify where each absent 1957 returnee came from. The United States made the testing, delayed-evacuation, and return-safety decisions; the Rongelapese community requested the 1985 movement and Greenpeace carried it.", "displaced": [ "82 Rongelapese exposed on Rongelap and Ailinginae in 1954", "About 200 additional Rongelapese joining the 1957 return", "300 remaining residents evacuated from Rongelap to Mejatto in 1985; the phase figures overlap" ], "settlers": [ "United States nuclear-testing, Trust Territory, medical, and radiological authorities", "The Rongelapese community as evacuation petitioners and Greenpeace as the 1985 carrier" ], "sources": [ "v5_marshall_nuclear_displacement_2025" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Kwajalein", "lon": 167.735, "lat": 8.716 }, { "name": "Ejit", "lon": 171.3505, "lat": 7.1249 }, { "name": "Rongelap return site", "lon": 166.9494, "lat": 11.4877 }, { "name": "Mejatto", "lon": 166.8749, "lat": 9.3117 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rongelap", "lon": 166.9494, "lat": 11.4877, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, { "name": "Ailinginae — exact occupied islet unresolved", "lon": 166.32, "lat": 11.12, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rongelap", "lon": 166.9494, "lat": 11.4877 }, "to": { "name": "Kwajalein", "lon": 167.735, "lat": 8.716 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Ailinginae", "lon": 166.32, "lat": 11.12 }, "to": { "name": "Kwajalein", "lon": 167.735, "lat": 8.716 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Kwajalein", "lon": 167.735, "lat": 8.716 }, "to": { "name": "Ejit", "lon": 171.3505, "lat": 7.1249 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Ejit", "lon": 171.3505, "lat": 7.1249 }, "to": { "name": "Rongelap", "lon": 166.9494, "lat": 11.4877 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Rongelap", "lon": 166.9494, "lat": 11.4877 }, "to": { "name": "Mejatto", "lon": 166.8749, "lat": 9.3117 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "The ordered segments show the documented community chain. Ailinginae is marked at atoll scale because the report does not identify the occupied islet. No route is invented for the approximately 200 people who were absent during Castle Bravo and joined the 1957 return.", "evidence": "an authoritative recent United Nations synthesis distinguishing the 1954 exposure and evacuation, the Kwajalein and Ejit displacement, the 1957 return, and the community-requested 1985 evacuation" }, { "id": "af-ngoni-mbelwa-northern-malawi-conquests", "name": "Mbelwa Ngoni conquest and settlement in northern Malawi", "region": "Africa", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "armed movement, conquest, captive incorporation, and durable settlement", "affectedLabel": "Subjected / incorporated", "actorLabel": "Movers / rulers", "dates": "c. 1855–early 1870s", "extent": "local", "viewWidth": 16, "viewPadding": 0.25, "reachFitCap": 20, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1855, "end": 1872, "yearLabel": "c. 1855", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1855, "end": 1855, "dateLabel": "c. 1855", "label": "Mbelwa installed at Ng’onga in the Henga Valley; the group moves south" }, { "start": 1855, "end": 1860, "dateLabel": "next few years", "label": "Tumbuka subjection, destruction of the remaining Chikulamayembe state, and settlement near the Rukuru–Kasitu–Ruzi confluence before Choma" }, { "start": 1870, "end": 1872, "dateLabel": "early 1870s", "label": "Mpherembe’s faction joins Mbelwa after its separate northeastern-Zambia sequence" } ] } ], "story": "Around 1855, after Mbelwa’s installation at Ng’onga in the Henga Valley, his Ngoni followers moved south into the northern Malawi highlands. They reduced most Tumbuka communities to subjection, destroyed the remaining Chikulamayembe state, and settled for several years near the confluence of the Rukuru, Kasitu, and Ruzi rivers before moving to Choma. The polity incorporated captives and was later joined by Mpherembe’s distinct, semi-independent faction in the early 1870s.", "contested": "No source fixes an exact day or year for the whole sequence. The playback coordinate is therefore an explicitly approximate c. 1855, not the model’s 1858 proxy. The evidence does not provide a population count, a complete captive roster, a uniform land-transfer mechanism, or proof that all Tumbuka residents were removed. Subjection and incorporation were central outcomes; this is not presented as total demographic replacement.", "displaced": [ "Tumbuka communities subjected during the southward movement", "The remaining Chikulamayembe political order", "Male and female captives incorporated from encountered and neighboring communities" ], "settlers": [ "Mbelwa and his Ngoni followers", "Mtwalo and Mabilabo’s associated segments", "Mpherembe’s later-joining faction and Ngoni age regiments" ], "sources": [ "v5_ngoni_mbelwa_mccracken", "v5_ngoni_mbelwa_thompson", "v5_ngoni_mpherembe_nyirenda" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Rukuru–Kasitu–Ruzi confluence settlement", "lon": 33.91, "lat": -11.04 }, { "name": "Choma / northern Mzimba settlement zone", "lon": 33.87, "lat": -11.47 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Ng’onga in the Henga Valley", "lon": 33.96, "lat": -10.95 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Ng’onga / Henga Valley", "lon": 33.96, "lat": -10.95 }, "to": { "name": "Rukuru–Kasitu–Ruzi confluence", "lon": 33.91, "lat": -11.04 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Rukuru–Kasitu–Ruzi confluence", "lon": 33.91, "lat": -11.04 }, "to": { "name": "Choma", "lon": 33.87, "lat": -11.47 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The short route follows the source-described southward sequence from Ng’onga in the Henga Valley to the temporary confluence settlement and then Choma. The Mpherembe branch is retained in the dated narrative but receives no invented line from a generalized northeastern-Zambia origin.", "evidence": "McCracken’s synthesis, Thompson’s specialist study, and Nyirenda’s University of Malawi research supporting the approximate chronology, southward sequence, Tumbuka subjection, Chikulamayembe destruction, settlement locations, captive incorporation, and later Mpherembe junction; McCracken cites Thompson for this history and the two are not counted as independent attestations" }, { "id": "south-africa-cape-khoekhoe-land-labor-dispossession-1652-1806", "name": "Dutch Cape expansion and Khoikhoi land-and-labor dispossession", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "colonial land grants, pastoral dispossession, conquest, and labor incorporation", "affectedLabel": "Dispossessed / incorporated", "actorLabel": "Colonial agents / settlers", "dates": "1652–1806", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 118, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 138, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": 1652, "end": 1806, "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1652, "end": 1652, "label": "The VOC establishes the Table Bay provisioning station" }, { "start": 1657, "end": 1657, "label": "Free-burgher grants occupy choice Khoikhoi pasturage along the Liesbeek" }, { "start": 1659, "end": 1660, "label": "The first Khoikhoi–Dutch war ends with a VOC claim to land by conquest" }, { "start": 1679, "end": 1714, "label": "Agrarian and loan-farm expansion extends into Stellenbosch, Paarl, and Swartland" }, { "start": 1806, "end": 1806, "label": "Second British occupation ends the bounded Dutch institutional phase" } ] } ], "story": "The VOC station founded at Table Bay in 1652 became an agrarian and pastoral colony. Grants beginning in 1657 occupied watered Khoikhoi pasturage; war, conquest claims, expanding farms, and loss of herds and independent subsistence progressively dispossessed communities around the southwestern Cape. Survivors followed different paths, including resistance and migration, while many became clients or low-status laborers on settler farms.", "contested": "The sources establish the territorial and labor relationship but do not provide a parcel-by-parcel land history, annual population estimates, or a complete record of individual labor status. The 1806 endpoint is a change of colonial regime, not an end to dispossession. Imported African and Asian slave labor was historically important at the Cape but is outside this Khoikhoi-bounded event, so it is not counted in this case’s imported-labor measure.", "displaced": [ "Khoikhoi pastoral communities around Table Bay and the expanding southwestern Cape frontier", "People who lost grazing land, water access, herds, and independent means of subsistence", "Survivors incorporated as settler clients and low-status farm laborers" ], "settlers": [ "Dutch East India Company officials and garrison personnel", "Free burghers, agricultural settlers, and later pastoral loan-farm holders" ], "sources": [ "v5_cape_khoikhoi_guelke_shell", "v5_cape_san_adhikari_book", "v5_cape_khoikhoi_saho" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Table Bay", "lon": 18.4241, "lat": -33.9249 }, { "name": "Liesbeek and Cape Flats", "lon": 18.485, "lat": -33.955 }, { "name": "Stellenbosch", "lon": 18.8602, "lat": -33.9321 }, { "name": "Paarl and Swartland frontier", "lon": 18.85, "lat": -33.5 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Netherlands / VOC", "lon": 4.9, "lat": 52.37 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Netherlands / VOC", "lon": 4.9, "lat": 52.37 }, "to": { "name": "Table Bay", "lon": 18.4241, "lat": -33.9249 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Table Bay", "lon": 18.4241, "lat": -33.9249 }, "to": { "name": "Liesbeek and Cape Flats", "lon": 18.485, "lat": -33.955 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Liesbeek and Cape Flats", "lon": 18.485, "lat": -33.955 }, "to": { "name": "Stellenbosch", "lon": 18.8602, "lat": -33.9321 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Stellenbosch", "lon": 18.8602, "lat": -33.9321 }, "to": { "name": "Paarl and Swartland frontier", "lon": 18.85, "lat": -33.5 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The long segment identifies the VOC colonial founding stream. The shorter Cape segments show the source-described progression from Table Bay grants into the southwestern agrarian and pastoral frontier; they do not claim a single annual march or uniform removal route.", "evidence": "Guelke and Shell’s land-and-water analysis, Adhikari’s frontier chronology, and the frozen South African History Online source row support the institutional sequence, alienation of Khoikhoi pasturage, and incorporation of survivors while leaving local counts and parcel histories unresolved" }, { "id": "south-africa-cape-san-commando-clearance-1700s-1806", "name": "Cape San clearance under trekboer and commando expansion", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "pastoral invasion, game depletion, water and foraging disruption, commando killing, displacement, and captive seizure", "affectedLabel": "Cleared / displaced / captured", "actorLabel": "Settlers / commandos", "dates": "c. 1700–1806", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 17, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 24, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Cape Peninsula", "lon": 18.42, "lat": -33.93 }, { "name": "Great Karoo", "lon": 22.5, "lat": -32.2 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1700, "end": 1806, "yearLabel": "c. 1700", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1700, "end": 1700, "dateLabel": "c. 1700", "label": "Pastoral frontier reaches San country beyond the cultivable southwestern Cape" }, { "start": 1715, "end": 1715, "label": "An officially sanctioned all-burgher commando operates" }, { "start": 1739, "end": 1739, "label": "Compulsory commando duty formalizes frontier mobilization" }, { "start": 1770, "end": 1798, "label": "Sustained open war combines killing, captive taking, and land seizure" }, { "start": 1806, "end": 1806, "label": "Second British occupation marks the atlas cutoff; violence and dispossession continued" } ] } ], "story": "From about 1700, trekboer pastoral expansion carried the Cape frontier into San hunting country. Settlers depleted game, disrupted water, grazing, and foraging resources, and organized official and unofficial commandos. By the later eighteenth century recurrent raids killed San people, drove survivors toward more arid country, and seized women and children as forced farm labor while settlers occupied the cleared frontier.", "contested": "Colonial records do not supply a complete victim or captive census, and their shifting use of San, Khoikhoi, and Khoisan labels can blur identities at the frontier. The evidence documents both official and unofficial commandos but does not make every raid centrally ordered. The c. 1700 onset is approximate, and 1806 is a colonial-regime cutoff rather than the end of violence or land loss.", "displaced": [ "San communities across the expanding Cape pastoral frontier", "People killed or driven from hunting grounds after game depletion and disruption of water and foraging resources", "Women and children seized in commando raids for local farm labor" ], "settlers": [ "Trekboer pastoral settlers occupying water and grazing land", "Official and unofficial burgher commandos", "VOC authorities that supplied, sanctioned, or tolerated the commando system" ], "sources": [ "v5_cape_san_adhikari_book", "v5_cape_san_adhikari_article", "v5_cape_san_saho" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Tulbagh and Cederberg frontier", "lon": 19.1, "lat": -32.7 }, { "name": "Bokkeveld and Roggeveld", "lon": 19.85, "lat": -31.55 }, { "name": "Sneeuberg", "lon": 24.3, "lat": -31.7 }, { "name": "Camdeboo", "lon": 24.8, "lat": -32.25 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Established southwestern Cape settler frontier", "lon": 18.7, "lat": -33.5 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Southwestern Cape settler frontier", "lon": 18.7, "lat": -33.5 }, "to": { "name": "Tulbagh and Cederberg", "lon": 19.1, "lat": -32.7 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Tulbagh and Cederberg", "lon": 19.1, "lat": -32.7 }, "to": { "name": "Bokkeveld and Roggeveld", "lon": 19.85, "lat": -31.55 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Bokkeveld and Roggeveld", "lon": 19.85, "lat": -31.55 }, "to": { "name": "Sneeuberg", "lon": 24.3, "lat": -31.7 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Sneeuberg", "lon": 24.3, "lat": -31.7 }, "to": { "name": "Camdeboo", "lon": 24.8, "lat": -32.25 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The route depicts the broad eastward and northeastward expansion of an already established Cape pastoral frontier. It is not a transoceanic migration line and does not assign every commando to the same path or year.", "evidence": "Adhikari’s book and article provide the frontier and commando chronology, relationship among land seizure, lethal violence, and captive taking, and the limits of colonial identity labels; the frozen South African History Online source row corroborates the pre-1806 San-specific mechanism" }, { "id": "asia-han-hexi-conquest-tuntian-121-bce-onward", "name": "Han conquest and soldier-farmer colonization of the Hexi Corridor", "region": "East & Central Asia", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "military conquest, commanderies, defenses, and soldier-farmer colonies", "affectedLabel": "Conquered / locally affected", "actorLabel": "Han state / colonists", "dates": "121 BCE–220 CE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 38, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 80, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Hexi Corridor", "lon": 99, "lat": 39.2 }, { "name": "Gobi Desert", "lon": 102, "lat": 42 }, { "name": "Qilian Mountains", "lon": 99.5, "lat": 37.4 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -121, "end": 220, "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -121, "end": -121, "label": "Han armies conquer the Hexi Corridor; Wuwei and Jiuquan become commandery seats" }, { "start": -111, "end": -111, "label": "Zhangye becomes a commandery seat as the corridor system expands" }, { "start": -110, "end": 219, "dateLabel": "Han period", "label": "Defenses and tuntian soldier-farmer colonies spread from the eastern corridor toward Dunhuang" }, { "start": 220, "end": 220, "label": "The fall of Han marks the atlas cutoff, not an exact end for every colony" } ] } ], "story": "After Han armies conquered the Hexi Corridor in 121 BCE, the state established commandery seats, defensive works, and military-agricultural colonies along its oases. Around Wuwei, burials suggest soldiers or newly arrived soldier-farmers, some with immediate family members; elsewhere, the evidence traces military-farming colonies and control west through Zhangye and Jiuquan toward Dunhuang. Under tuntian, soldier-farmers supplied grain for government envoys traveling toward the Western Regions and defended and colonized the frontier.", "contested": "The sources establish conquest, state institutions, and durable colonization, but they do not provide resident-removal totals, parcel transfers, settler counts, or the fate of each Xiongnu or oasis community. The reviewed family is Conquest and incorporation in both the atlas and second_pass_v7_676. The 220 CE endpoint is a dynastic transition bound, not a simultaneous end to every installation.", "displaced": [ "Xiongnu political control conquered in the Hexi Corridor", "Local corridor and oasis communities whose specific land and demographic outcomes remain unresolved" ], "settlers": [ "Han armies and commandery administrations", "Military-farming colonists along the corridor; Wuwei-area burials include newly arrived soldier-farmers and some immediate family members" ], "sources": [ "v5_han_hexi_clydesdale", "v5_han_hexi_wen" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Wuwei", "lon": 102.637, "lat": 37.9283 }, { "name": "Zhangye", "lon": 100.4498, "lat": 38.9259 }, { "name": "Jiuquan", "lon": 98.4943, "lat": 39.7326 }, { "name": "Dunhuang", "lon": 94.6619, "lat": 40.1421 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Chinese heartland — schematic", "lon": 111.5, "lat": 34.5 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Chinese heartland — schematic", "lon": 111.5, "lat": 34.5 }, "to": { "name": "Wuwei", "lon": 102.637, "lat": 37.9283 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Wuwei", "lon": 102.637, "lat": 37.9283 }, "to": { "name": "Zhangye", "lon": 100.4498, "lat": 38.9259 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Zhangye", "lon": 100.4498, "lat": 38.9259 }, "to": { "name": "Jiuquan", "lon": 98.4943, "lat": 39.7326 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Jiuquan", "lon": 98.4943, "lat": 39.7326 }, "to": { "name": "Dunhuang", "lon": 94.6619, "lat": 40.1421 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The first line begins at a deliberately coarse middle–Yellow River point representing the Chinese heartland, not a documented departure city for every settler. The corridor sequence shows the source-supported westward institutional and colonial geography; it is not a claim that one cohort marched through every commandery in one journey.", "evidence": "Clydesdale’s archaeological synthesis supports Wuwei and Jiuquan in 121 BCE, Zhangye in 111 BCE, the soldier-farmer colonies, tuntian’s defense-and-colonization role, and the 220 CE transition; Wen independently supports the 121 BCE conquest, following-decade administrative seats through Dunhuang, and defensive construction" }, { "id": "asia-han-western-regions-oasis-garrisons-tuntian", "name": "Han forced migration and tuntian garrisons in the Western Regions", "region": "East & Central Asia", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "imperial forced migration into self-sufficient military-agricultural outposts", "affectedLabel": "Compelled migrants / local peoples", "actorLabel": "Han state / garrisons", "dates": "from 101 BCE; wider endpoint unresolved", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 58, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 124, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Hexi Corridor", "lon": 98.5, "lat": 39.8 }, { "name": "Western Regions", "lon": 84, "lat": 41 }, { "name": "Tarim Basin", "lon": 84.5, "lat": 39.2 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -101, "end": -101, "yearLabel": "101 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -101, "end": -101, "label": "Emperor Wu orders thousands from the North China Plain to establish western tuntian outposts" } ] } ], "story": "In 101 BCE Emperor Wu ordered thousands of people from the North China Plain to migrate to the western fringes of the Han empire and establish large, self-sufficient tuntian outposts. These military-agricultural garrisons projected political, military, and economic power toward Central Asian kingdoms. At Shichengzi, probably ancient Shule, burials and crop remains suggest a community that probably mixed Han migrants with local agro-pastoralists.", "contested": "The source identifies forcible migration, a 101 BCE start, and at least 45 Han-period city sites catalogued in Xinjiang, not all identified as tuntian outposts. It does not give a program-wide endpoint, the route or household composition of every migrant cohort, or the effects on specific local peoples. Shichengzi’s reported abandonment in 75 CE is site-specific and is not used as the end of the wider program. The primary-family label records state-directed population placement; it does not imply demonstrated removal of every pre-existing oasis community.", "displaced": [ "Thousands of Han people ordered to migrate from the North China Plain", "Local agro-pastoralist peoples whose interactions and territorial outcomes remain unresolved" ], "settlers": [ "Emperor Wu and the Han state", "Military-garrison personnel and state-directed migrants at western outposts" ], "sources": [ "v5_han_western_regions_sheng" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Shichengzi / probable Shule", "lon": 89.762, "lat": 43.6164 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "North China Plain", "lon": 114.3, "lat": 35 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "North China Plain", "lon": 114.3, "lat": 35 }, "to": { "name": "Shichengzi / probable Shule", "lon": 89.762, "lat": 43.6164 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "Shichengzi is the securely located site example, not a stand-in for every Han-period city site catalogued in Xinjiang. The long line visualizes the documented program-level movement from the North China Plain; the source does not preserve each cohort’s exact route.", "evidence": "Sheng and colleagues directly support the 101 BCE imperial order, thousands of migrants from the North China Plain, large self-sufficient western tuntian garrisons, at least 45 Han-period city sites catalogued in Xinjiang, Shichengzi’s location and probable mixed population, and the unresolved character of local interaction and the wider program endpoint" }, { "id": "prospective-magna-graecia-sybaris-foundation-chora", "name": "Foundation of Sybaris and subjection of neighboring communities", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "colonial foundation, agrarian expansion, and political subjection", "affectedLabel": "Subjected / territorially affected", "actorLabel": "Colonists / ruling polis", "dates": "c. 720 BCE; expansion chronology unresolved", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 23, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 44, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Achaea", "lon": 22.1, "lat": 38.2 }, { "name": "Gulf of Taranto", "lon": 17.2, "lat": 39.8 }, { "name": "Calabria", "lon": 16.3, "lat": 39.1 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -720, "end": -720, "yearLabel": "c. 720 BCE" } ], "story": "Sybaris was founded around 720 BCE as an Achaean and Troezenian colony near the Crati River. Strabo’s foundation account names Is of Helice and says that the city later ruled four neighboring tribes and twenty-five subject cities. The atlas treats that expansion as part of Sybaris’s territorial formation, while keeping the much later Crotonian destruction of Sybaris in 510 BCE outside this event.", "contested": "The sources do not date each stage of expansion, name the four neighboring tribes, map the twenty-five-city network, or separate alliance, tribute, coercion, land transfer, and resident removal for every dependency. The c. 720 BCE stop dates the foundation, not the completion of the chora or subject network, and the family does not imply that every subjected community was displaced.", "displaced": [ "Four unnamed neighboring tribes reported as coming under Sybarite rule", "Communities in the reported network of twenty-five subject cities whose local outcomes remain unresolved" ], "settlers": [ "Achaean and Troezenian colonists", "Is of Helice and the early Sybarite polis" ], "sources": [ "v5_greek_strabo_book6", "v5_greek_sybaris_lomas" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Sybaris", "lon": 16.4867, "lat": 39.7186 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Helice / Achaea", "lon": 22.1964, "lat": 38.2553 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Helice / Achaea", "lon": 22.1964, "lat": 38.2553 }, "to": { "name": "Sybaris", "lon": 16.4867, "lat": 39.7186 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The route identifies the Achaean origin named in Strabo’s foundation account. It does not reconstruct a ship track, represent every Troezenian participant, or map the later subject network whose boundaries are unresolved.", "evidence": "Lomas supplies the modern c. 720 BCE foundation date and Achaean/Troezenian identification; Strabo 6.1.13 supplies Is of Helice, the Achaean foundation, and the later report of four neighboring tribes and twenty-five subject cities" }, { "id": "prospective-magna-graecia-siris-polieium-seizure", "name": "Traditional account of Ionian capture of Chonian Siris", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "literary tradition of refugee migration and forceful occupation of a pre-existing city", "affectedLabel": "Chonian residents in the literary tradition", "actorLabel": "Ionian refugees in the literary tradition", "dates": "traditionally c. 660 BCE; archaeological chronology disputed", "extent": "local", "viewWidth": 36, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 58, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Ionia", "lon": 27.2, "lat": 38.2 }, { "name": "Gulf of Taranto", "lon": 17.2, "lat": 39.8 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -660, "end": -660, "yearLabel": "c. 660 BCE" } ], "story": "Strabo preserves a literary account in which Ionian refugees fleeing Lydian rule took the Chonian city of Siris by force and called it Polieium. Other ancient testimony identifies the Ionians as people from Colophon. Synchronizing that tradition with Gyges’ conquest of Colophon produces a conventional date around 660 BCE, but the historicity of the Colophonian account is disputed and archaeology indicates Greek settlement at the site earlier.", "contested": "The literary traditions are difficult to reconcile with one another and with the archaeology. The c. 660 BCE map stop is a traditional synchronization, not a securely observed year; evidence of Greek settlement may reach the late eighth or early seventh century BCE. The inherited Conquest and incorporation family classifies the structure described by the literary account; it is not independent confirmation that the takeover occurred exactly as narrated. The account does not reveal the number, removal, survival, incorporation, or property outcomes of Chonian residents.", "displaced": [ "Chonian inhabitants named in the literary account, whose presence and specific demographic outcome at the disputed foundation horizon are unresolved" ], "settlers": [ "Ionian refugees identified in later tradition with Colophon", "Colonists who established or renamed the city Polieium" ], "sources": [ "v5_greek_strabo_book6", "v5_greek_inventory_poleis" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Siris / Polieium at Policoro", "lon": 16.677, "lat": 40.209 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Colophon — traditional", "lon": 27.16, "lat": 38.12 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Colophon — traditional", "lon": 27.16, "lat": 38.12 }, "to": { "name": "Siris / Polieium", "lon": 16.677, "lat": 40.209 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The line visualizes the Colophonian origin preserved in later ancient testimony. Strabo names Ionians but not Colophon, and neither source preserves an exact voyage; the origin and c. 660 BCE date are therefore marked as traditional.", "evidence": "Strabo 6.1.14 supplies the Ionian flight, Chonian predecessor city, forceful occupation, and Polieium name; the Oxford Inventory evaluates the conflicting traditions, Colophonian identification, c. 660 synchronization, and earlier archaeological chronology" }, { "id": "prospective-sicily-himera-foundation-chora", "name": "Foundation of Himera and locally varied chora formation", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "colonial foundation followed by locally varied land control, interaction, conflict, and political subjection", "affectedLabel": "Locally affected communities", "actorLabel": "Colonists / ruling polis", "dates": "648 BCE traditional; archaeology supports mid-7th century BCE", "extent": "local", "viewWidth": 12, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 18, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Northern Sicily", "lon": 14.3, "lat": 38.1 }, { "name": "Sicilian interior", "lon": 14, "lat": 37.5 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -648, "end": -648, "yearLabel": "648 BCE" } ], "story": "Himera’s traditional foundation date is 648 BCE, and archaeological material is consistent with a mid-seventh-century beginning. Thucydides describes a foundation from Zancle by settlers mostly of Chalcidian descent, joined by Syracusan exiles. Archaeology in Himera’s territory shows no single uniform outcome: different places preserve settlement hierarchies, land-control systems, exchange and religious interaction, conflict, and military control.", "contested": "The 648 BCE date is traditional rather than exact, although it agrees broadly with the archaeological chronology. The territorial evidence varies by locality and cannot support a single removal rate, a uniform Indigenous response, or one dated frontier line. The atlas therefore treats Himera’s chora as one heterogeneous territorial formation rather than either a blanket displacement claim or unsupported micro-events.", "displaced": [ "Indigenous communities in Himera’s territory affected differently by settlement, land control, interaction, conflict, and military power" ], "settlers": [ "Settlers from Zancle, mostly of Chalcidian descent", "Syracusan political exiles who joined the foundation" ], "sources": [ "v5_greek_himera_davies_finglass", "v5_greek_himera_belvedere", "v5_greek_strabo_book6" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Himera and its chora", "lon": 13.8275, "lat": 37.9978 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Zancle", "lon": 15.554, "lat": 38.193 }, { "name": "Syracuse exiles", "lon": 15.293, "lat": 37.075 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Zancle", "lon": 15.554, "lat": 38.193 }, "to": { "name": "Himera", "lon": 13.8275, "lat": 37.9978 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Syracuse", "lon": 15.293, "lat": 37.075 }, "to": { "name": "Himera", "lon": 13.8275, "lat": 37.9978 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The two lines show the documented Zanclean foundation stream and the Syracusan exile contribution. They do not reconstruct individual voyages, and the destination marker does not imply that every Indigenous community in Himera’s wider territory experienced the same outcome.", "evidence": "Davies and Finglass synthesize the 648 BCE tradition, mid-seventh-century archaeology, Zanclean foundation, Chalcidian majority, and Syracusan exile contribution; Belvedere supplies locality-specific evidence for settlement hierarchy, land control, interaction, conflict, and military control" }, { "id": "prospective-magna-graecia-metapontium-achaean-resettlement", "name": "Achaean strategic resettlement of Metapontion", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "strategic resettlement, rival territorial exclusion, war, and boundary settlement", "affectedLabel": "Territorially affected / contested", "actorLabel": "Inviting polis / settlers", "dates": "c. 630 BCE; later conflict chronology unresolved", "extent": "local", "viewWidth": 23, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 44, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Achaea", "lon": 22.1464, "lat": 38.2631 }, { "name": "Taras", "lon": 17.23, "lat": 40.47 }, { "name": "Gulf of Taranto", "lon": 17.2, "lat": 39.8 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -630, "end": -630, "yearLabel": "c. 630 BCE" } ], "story": "Metapontion was founded around 630 BCE. In the tradition preserved by Strabo, Sybaris encouraged Achaean colonists to occupy the abandoned site so that Tarentines would not take it. The settlement was followed by war involving Tarentines and Oenotrians, then reconciliation and a defined territorial boundary. The event is therefore a strategic population placement and land-control program, not an empty-land migration.", "contested": "The foundation site is described as abandoned, but the wider land was claimed and contested. The sources do not date every phase, identify a continuous central administration, quantify the settlers, or show removal of a resident urban population. The c. 630 BCE stop dates the foundation; it does not collapse the later war and boundary settlement into the same year.", "displaced": [ "Oenotrian communities affected by the ensuing territorial conflict and boundary settlement", "Tarentine claims excluded or constrained by the strategic resettlement" ], "settlers": [ "Achaean colonists encouraged to settle at Metapontion", "Sybarite authorities associated in the tradition with the buffer-settlement decision" ], "sources": [ "v5_greek_strabo_book6", "v5_greek_metapontion_carter" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Metapontion", "lon": 16.82, "lat": 40.37 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Achaea", "lon": 22.1464, "lat": 38.2631 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Achaea", "lon": 22.1464, "lat": 38.2631 }, "to": { "name": "Metapontion", "lon": 16.82, "lat": 40.37 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The route shows the Achaean settlement stream named in the literary tradition. It does not reconstruct a voyage, and the map does not treat the abandoned urban site as proof that the surrounding territory lacked Oenotrian use or competing Tarentine claims.", "evidence": "Carter supplies the modern c. 630 BCE foundation date; Strabo 6.1.15 supplies the abandoned-site resettlement, strategic exclusion of a Tarentine claim, subsequent war with Tarentines and Oenotrians, reconciliation, and boundary definition" }, { "id": "south-africa-1913-land-act-reserve-dispossession", "name": "Natives Land Act tenure prohibition and reserve dispossession", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "racial land-tenure prohibition, anti-squatting rules, tenant displacement, labor subordination, eviction, and reserve confinement", "affectedLabel": "Dispossessed / confined / subordinated", "actorLabel": "State / landholders", "dates": "from 19 June 1913; endpoint unresolved", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 22, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 36, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Transvaal", "lon": 28, "lat": -25.7 }, { "name": "Orange Free State", "lon": 26.5, "lat": -28.5 }, { "name": "Natal", "lon": 30.5, "lat": -29 }, { "name": "Cape Province", "lon": 22.5, "lat": -32.5 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1913, "end": 1913, "yearLabel": "1913", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1913, "end": 1913, "label": "Act No. 27 receives assent on 19 June and divides access to land through scheduled areas" }, { "start": 1913, "end": 1913, "dateLabel": "from 1913", "label": "Purchase and hire restrictions, anti-squatting enforcement, eviction, and reserve confinement continue without one defensible endpoint" } ] } ], "story": "The Natives Land Act of 1913 prohibited Black South Africans from purchasing or hiring land outside scheduled areas and restricted white acquisition within them. Its anti-squatting provisions attacked sharecropping and tenancy, encouraged landholders to replace Black tenants with servants or laborers, and exposed farm communities to eviction, loss of independent subsistence, and movement toward reserves.", "contested": "This was a national legal and property regime with locally uneven enforcement, not one synchronized relocation. The source does not provide a complete affected-household census, parcel-level dispossession map, or defensible terminal year. The map therefore shows statutory reach and regional context rather than an invented origin or removal route. The Conquest and incorporation family reflects the combined land-and-labor outcome; it does not deny physical eviction or reserve movement.", "displaced": [ "Black landholders, purchasers, tenants, sharecroppers, and farm communities barred from acquiring or hiring land outside scheduled areas", "People exposed to tenant elimination, eviction, labor dependence, and movement toward reserves" ], "settlers": [ "The white-minority Union government and Parliament", "White farmers and landowners applying the tenure and anti-squatting regime" ], "sources": [ "v5_sa_land_act_saho" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Union-wide statutory reach — map anchor", "lon": 25, "lat": -29 } ], "origins": [], "placeGloss": "The single point anchors a Union-wide legal regime on the map; it is not a removal destination. No route is drawn because the opened source does not provide one national movement path or one successor use for all dispossessed land.", "evidence": "South African History Online supplies the 19 June 1913 enactment, scheduled-area purchase and hire restrictions, anti-squatting provisions, tenant-to-laborer pressure, eviction, and reserve movement while leaving local counts, parcels, and the endpoint unresolved" }, { "id": "south-africa-group-areas-urban-forced-removals", "name": "Group Areas Act urban racial zoning and forced removals", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "compulsory racial zoning, property and occupation restrictions, eviction, forced resettlement, demolition, and community destruction", "affectedLabel": "Removed / excluded", "actorLabel": "Apartheid authorities", "dates": "1950–1991", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 21, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 38, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Cape Town and the Cape Flats", "lon": 18.52, "lat": -33.95 }, { "name": "South Africa", "lon": 25, "lat": -29 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1950, "end": 1991, "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1950, "end": 1950, "label": "The Group Areas Act establishes compulsory racial zoning and property restrictions" }, { "start": 1966, "end": 1982, "label": "District Six is declared a white area; residents are removed toward the Cape Flats and most buildings are demolished" }, { "start": 1991, "end": 1991, "label": "The Group Areas Act is repealed; dispossession and spatial segregation persist" } ] } ], "story": "The Group Areas Act of 1950 divided urban land into compulsory racial zones and restricted who could own, lease, occupy, or conduct business in them. State boards, police, local authorities, demolition, intimidation, and economic pressure removed Black, Coloured, and Indian communities from established neighborhoods. District Six to the Cape Flats is mapped as one documented example of a much wider national program.", "contested": "The mapped route does not exhaust the Group Areas program or imply that every removal followed the same timetable. Sophiatown is excluded because its removal used the separate Natives Resettlement Act, despite belonging to the same wider urban-apartheid project. The sources do not provide one municipality-by-municipality sequence, complete property ledger, household denominator, or remedy history. White occupation and redevelopment varied by locality, so the State-directed demographic remaking family does not assert one uniform settler-replacement stream.", "displaced": [ "Coloured, Indian, and African residents removed from District Six and other Cape Town communities toward the Cape Flats", "Urban communities nationally subjected to racial zoning, property loss, eviction, and demolition" ], "settlers": [ "The National Party government, Parliament, the Group Areas Board, police, and state and local removal authorities", "Property and redevelopment institutions that transferred or restricted occupation in proclaimed areas" ], "sources": [ "v5_sa_forced_removals_saho", "v5_sa_cape_town_segregated_saho" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Cape Flats — broad receiving area", "lon": 18.62, "lat": -34 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "District Six", "lon": 18.44, "lat": -33.93, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "District Six", "lon": 18.44, "lat": -33.93 }, "to": { "name": "Cape Flats — broad receiving area", "lon": 18.62, "lat": -34 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "The forced route is one bounded example: District Six residents were dispersed across the broad Cape Flats rather than to one precise point. It illustrates, but does not spatially total, the national Group Areas program.", "evidence": "South African History Online supports the 1950–1991 statutory frame and national coercive mechanism; its Cape Town history ties District Six to a Group Areas declaration and supplies the mapped origin, broad receiving geography, forced removal, and demolition sequence" }, { "id": "south-africa-bantustan-consolidation-removals", "name": "Bantustan consolidation and community-removal program", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "homeland tract consolidation, community-removal orders, black-spot clearance, forced resettlement, and boundary incorporation", "affectedLabel": "Removed / threatened / incorporated", "actorLabel": "Apartheid authorities", "dates": "documented from 1972; endpoint unresolved", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 20, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 36, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "KwaZulu consolidation proposals", "lon": 30.8, "lat": -28.7 }, { "name": "Transvaal black spots and homeland boundaries", "lon": 29, "lat": -25.7 }, { "name": "Bophuthatswana consolidation region", "lon": 26.5, "lat": -25.5 }, { "name": "Eastern Cape homelands", "lon": 27.8, "lat": -32 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1972, "end": 1972, "yearLabel": "1972", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1972, "end": 1972, "label": "Department planning and tract proposals provide the event’s documented evidence floor" }, { "start": 1973, "end": 1973, "label": "The Black Laws Amendment Act extends removal-order power to a community as well as a tribe or part of one" }, { "start": 1975, "end": 1982, "label": "Homeland consolidation intensifies through removals, black-spot clearance, and boundary changes" }, { "start": 1983, "end": 1989, "label": "Resistance continues; some threatened removals are blocked while other communities are incorporated by redrawn boundaries" } ] } ], "story": "Apartheid authorities tried to consolidate fragmented Bantustans by purchasing and recombining tracts, removing communities and black spots, relocating townships toward homelands, and redrawing boundaries. Planning entries from 1972 and a 1973 amendment supply a documented evidence floor; the program intensified during the homeland-independence period. Physical removals, threatened removals, and territorial incorporation were related tools but not the same outcome.", "contested": "The 1972 date is an evidence floor, not proof that homeland engineering began that year, and the opened sources do not establish one endpoint. Proposals were not all executed: some communities resisted removal, while others were incorporated into a homeland by boundary changes without physically moving. The map therefore marks documented program regions but draws no route that would falsely convert every plan or boundary act into a completed relocation.", "displaced": [ "Black communities subjected to homeland-consolidation removal orders or forced relocation", "Residents of black spots and townships targeted for clearance or movement toward a homeland", "Communities threatened with removal or incorporated into a Bantustan through boundary changes" ], "settlers": [ "The apartheid government, Department of Bantu Development, Parliament, and officials planning consolidation and removal orders", "Homeland administrations and state institutions involved in territorial consolidation" ], "sources": [ "v5_sa_forced_removals_saho", "v5_sa_1970s_timeline_saho", "v5_sa_apartheid_legislation_saho", "v5_sa_trc_volume2", "v5_sa_trc_volume3" ], "targets": [ { "name": "KwaZulu consolidation proposals", "lon": 30.8, "lat": -28.7 }, { "name": "Transvaal consolidation and black-spot removals", "lon": 29, "lat": -25.7 }, { "name": "Bophuthatswana consolidation region", "lon": 26.5, "lat": -25.5 } ], "origins": [], "placeGloss": "The points identify regions named in consolidation planning and later removal or boundary-incorporation evidence. They are not destinations and are not a complete homeland map; no movement route is drawn because the record includes proposals, resisted removals, completed removals, and boundary changes with different spatial meanings.", "evidence": "South African History Online supplies the 1972 planning floor, 1973 removal-order power, and Bantustan-removal category; the Truth and Reconciliation Commission documents the later consolidation drive, black-spot and township removals, community resistance, and the distinction between relocation and boundary incorporation" }, { "id": "atlas-cahokia-aztalan-colonial-settlement", "name": "Cahokia-linked settlement and remaking of Aztalan", "region": "North America", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "incoming settlement, expansion and physical remaking of an occupied village, intermarriage, and cultural blending", "affectedLabel": "Prior residents / joined community", "actorLabel": "Cahokia-linked arrivals", "dates": "c. 1000–1200 CE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 28, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 65, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Cahokia", "lon": -90.06, "lat": 38.66 }, { "name": "Aztalan on the Crawfish River", "lon": -88.86, "lat": 43.07 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1000, "end": 1200, "yearLabel": "c. 1000 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1000, "end": 1000, "label": "Cahokia-linked visitors join an existing Late Woodland village around 1000" }, { "start": 1000, "end": 1100, "label": "The village is expanded and remade around a plaza, platform mounds, and palisades" }, { "start": 1100, "end": 1200, "label": "Middle Mississippian and Late Woodland people intermarry and their cultures blend" }, { "start": 1200, "end": 1200, "label": "The village is abandoned for unknown reasons around 1200" } ] } ], "story": "A Late Woodland community already occupied the Crawfish River village when visitors linked to Cahokia arrived around 1000. The settlement was quickly expanded and remade with a central plaza, platform mounds, and palisades modeled on Cahokia. Over time Middle Mississippian and Late Woodland people intermarried and their cultures blended; the village was abandoned for unknown reasons around 1200.", "contested": "The sources do not establish conquest, forced entry, resident expulsion, or demographic replacement. The Wisconsin Historical Society synthesis notes cultural conflict and possible violent practices, but does not connect them to conquest, forced entry, or resident removal. Invitation, marriage, trade, or alliance remain possible, and the evidence does not provide population counts or land-tenure rules. The movement line shows a Cahokia-linked connection, not an exact surveyed route. Low-state durable expansion names the settlement and remaking of an occupied place without converting uncertainty into coercion.", "displaced": [ "Descendants of local Late Woodland Effigy Mound communities already living at the Crawfish River village", "The later intermarried and culturally mixed Aztalan community; forced removal is not demonstrated" ], "settlers": [ "Visitors and settlers from Cahokia or with immediate ancestral ties to Cahokia", "The pre-existing local village community participating in the later mixed settlement" ], "sources": [ "v5_cahokia_aztalan_whs" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Aztalan — occupied village remade", "lon": -88.86, "lat": 43.07 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Cahokia-linked source", "lon": -90.06, "lat": 38.66 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Cahokia-linked source", "lon": -90.06, "lat": 38.66 }, "to": { "name": "Aztalan — occupied village remade", "lon": -88.86, "lat": 43.07 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Aztalan lies on the Crawfish River in present-day Wisconsin. The map begins at Cahokia near present-day St. Louis and ends at an already occupied village; it does not draw a local-removal route because none is documented.", "evidence": "Wisconsin Historical Society sections on the pre-existing Late Woodland village, Cahokia-linked arrival around 1000, rapid physical remaking, intermarriage and cultural blending, and abandonment for unknown reasons around 1200" }, { "id": "atlas-cahokia-trempealeau-colony", "name": "Early Cahokian settlement and religious installation at Trempealeau", "region": "North America", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "intrusive Cahokian occupation, settlement, platform-mound and religious construction, and possible farmsteads", "affectedLabel": "Nearby local people / outcome unresolved", "actorLabel": "Cahokian settlers / builders", "dates": "immediately before 1050 to before 1100 CE", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 28, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 65, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Cahokia", "lon": -90.06, "lat": 38.66 }, { "name": "Trempealeau and Fisher Mounds complexes", "lon": -91.44, "lat": 44 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1049, "end": 1099, "yearLabel": "c. 1050 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1049, "end": 1049, "label": "The bounded occupation begins immediately before 1050; no exact start year is known" }, { "start": 1050, "end": 1099, "label": "Cahokian buildings, mounds, ceramics, imported tools, and possible farmsteads define the installation" }, { "start": 1099, "end": 1099, "label": "The occupation ends before 1100; no exact terminal year is known" } ] } ], "story": "At the Trempealeau and Fisher Mounds complexes in western Wisconsin, Cahokian settlers built platform mounds, wall-trench structures, likely religious buildings, and possible farmsteads. Cahokian ceramics and imported stone tools mark a distinct occupation about 900 river kilometers north of Cahokia, beginning immediately before 1050 and ending before 1100.", "contested": "The peer-reviewed interpretation calls this an intrusive religious installation probably built by and for Cahokians with minimal involvement by living local people. It does not establish violence, forced removal, formal rule, land-tenure change, or the later fate of nearby communities. The exact start and end years, participant counts, and permanence of possible farmsteads remain unknown. Low-state durable expansion is the frozen model's nearest analytical family, not a claim that this less-than-century occupation was itself durable; the durability trait is zero. The family names the incoming installation, not demonstrated displacement.", "displaced": [ "Living local Upper Mississippi Valley people near the installation, whose identities and territorial outcomes are not named", "No source-supported forced-removal population" ], "settlers": [ "Cahokian settlers and builders associated with the early occupation", "Participants in the probable religious installation and possible farmsteads" ], "sources": [ "v5_cahokia_trempealeau_pauketat", "v5_cahokia_trempealeau_whs" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Trempealeau and Fisher Mounds complexes", "lon": -91.44, "lat": 44 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Cahokia", "lon": -90.06, "lat": 38.66 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Cahokia", "lon": -90.06, "lat": 38.66 }, "to": { "name": "Trempealeau and Fisher Mounds complexes", "lon": -91.44, "lat": 44 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Trempealeau lies on the Upper Mississippi in western Wisconsin. The line connects the source city and the installation for orientation; it is not an excavated travel itinerary and does not imply a local expulsion route.", "evidence": "Pauketat, Boszhardt, and Benden's peer-reviewed abstract supplies the bounded pre-1050 to pre-1100 chronology, Cahokian material signature, likely religious installation, and minimal local involvement; the Wisconsin Historical Society supplies regional context" }, { "id": "asia-japanese-south-manchuria-railway-zone-settlement-1905-1931", "name": "Japanese railway-zone administration and urban settlement in southern Manchuria", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "treaty-derived extraterritorial railway-land control, state-backed corporate administration, planned station-city construction, and Japanese urban migration", "affectedLabel": "Chinese residents / unequal colonial incorporation", "actorLabel": "Japanese state / South Manchuria Railway / urban migrants", "dates": "1905–1931", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 34, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 78, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Western Japan / Kyushu", "lon": 130.5, "lat": 33.5 }, { "name": "Dalian / Dairen", "lon": 121.62, "lat": 38.91 }, { "name": "Mukden / Shenyang railway town", "lon": 123.43, "lat": 41.8 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1905, "end": 1931, "yearLabel": "1905 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1905, "end": 1905, "label": "Treaty rights give Japan control of the railway corridor and associated lands" }, { "start": 1906, "end": 1907, "label": "The South Manchuria Railway Company is created and begins operating as a state-backed colonial institution" }, { "start": 1907, "end": 1931, "label": "Railway-zone administration, planned station cities, and predominantly urban Japanese migration expand" }, { "start": 1931, "end": 1931, "label": "The Manchurian Incident closes this bounded pre-Manchukuo phase" } ] } ], "story": "After the 1905 settlement of the Russo-Japanese War, Japan acquired treaty-based control of the southern Manchurian railway corridor and associated lands. The state-backed South Manchuria Railway Company directly administered the zone, built regulated station cities, and supplied transport, utilities, schools, hospitals, sanitation, real estate, mining, and experimental institutions. Japanese employees, merchants, professionals, and other migrants settled chiefly in these urban nodes before the 1931 Manchurian Incident transformed the colonial regime.", "contested": "The opened source establishes extraterritorial territorial control, planned colonial cities, and Japanese migration, but not a bounded Chinese removal campaign, a tract-specific displaced cohort, parcel-by-parcel ownership changes, complete resident counts, or event-specific lethal coercion. The map therefore shows colonial migration and railway-zone nodes, not an expulsion route. Conquest and incorporation is the frozen model's primary family: Chinese residents remained within an unequal colonial urban order, while their individual land and mobility outcomes remain unresolved.", "displaced": [ "Chinese residents and communities in and beside the railway municipalities, incorporated into an unequal colonial order", "No source-bounded population can yet be labeled as forcibly removed by this specific 1905–1931 program" ], "settlers": [ "South Manchuria Railway administrators and employees", "Japanese merchants, professionals, workers, and other predominantly urban migrants" ], "sources": [ "v5_manchuria_avila_tapies" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Dalian / Dairen railway and port zone", "lon": 121.62, "lat": 38.91 }, { "name": "Mukden / Shenyang railway town", "lon": 123.43, "lat": 41.8 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Western Japan / Kyushu", "lon": 130.5, "lat": 33.5 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Western Japan / Kyushu", "lon": 130.5, "lat": 33.5 }, "to": { "name": "Dalian / Dairen railway and port zone", "lon": 121.62, "lat": 38.91 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Dalian / Dairen railway and port zone", "lon": 121.62, "lat": 38.91 }, "to": { "name": "Mukden / Shenyang railway town", "lon": 123.43, "lat": 41.8 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The map locates the Japanese source and two principal nodes of the southern Manchurian railway corridor. Its lines are migration and orientation links, not a claim that residents were deported along them.", "evidence": "Avila-Tàpies, printed pp. 38–45: treaty basis, railway lands, South Manchuria Railway administration, planned station cities, urban institutions, migration patterns, and the pre-/post-Manchukuo boundary" }, { "id": "asia-manchukuo-state-agricultural-colonization-1932-1945", "name": "Japanese state and army agricultural colonization of Manchukuo", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "army- and state-sponsored agricultural emigration, armed settler villages, forced or underpriced land transfer, collective-village removal, and Japanese occupation of vacated farms", "affectedLabel": "Chinese rural communities / displaced landholders and tenants", "actorLabel": "Japanese state / Kwantung Army / settler households", "dates": "1932–1945", "extent": "large", "viewWidth": 40, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 105, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Japanese archipelago", "lon": 137, "lat": 36 }, { "name": "Jiamusi arrival and staging point", "lon": 130.36, "lat": 46.8 }, { "name": "Northern Manchurian settlement frontier", "lon": 127, "lat": 47 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1932, "end": 1945, "yearLabel": "1932 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1932, "end": 1935, "label": "Army-backed trial emigration establishes armed agricultural settlements" }, { "start": 1936, "end": 1936, "label": "The mass-migration campaign and million-household plan begin" }, { "start": 1937, "end": 1945, "label": "Settler villages expand through strategic placement, coerced land transfer, and collective-village removal" }, { "start": 1945, "end": 1945, "label": "Japan's defeat and the collapse of Manchukuo end the program" } ] } ], "story": "From 1932 the Kwantung Army and Japanese state institutions sponsored agricultural emigration to Manchukuo, first through armed trial settlements and from 1936 through a mass campaign. Planners placed settler villages along strategic border and transport corridors. Chinese farmers faced forced or underpriced land transfers; some rural communities were moved into collective villages, and Japanese settlers occupied vacated farms. The projected million-household scheme was never achieved and collapsed with Japan's defeat in 1945.", "contested": "The source directly supports state and army organization, coerced land transfer, collective-village removal, and settlement on vacated farms. It does not provide settlement-by-settlement chronology, complete settler or displaced-person totals, parcel histories, or a defensible regional fraction removed. The map marks the documented rural frontier and incoming settlement stream but does not invent precise removal destinations. State-directed demographic remaking is the frozen primary family because this program deliberately reorganized rural population and land; the rapid 1945 collapse is reflected in the low durability trait.", "displaced": [ "Chinese peasants, landholders, tenants, and rural communities whose farms, homes, or villages were taken or reorganized", "People moved into controlled collective villages; complete numbers and destinations remain unresolved" ], "settlers": [ "Japanese agricultural settler households and armed emigrants", "Youth Brigade members and settlers organized by army, state, and colonial-development institutions" ], "sources": [ "v5_manchukuo_mcdowell" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Jiamusi arrival and staging point", "lon": 130.36, "lat": 46.8 }, { "name": "Northern Manchurian settlement frontier", "lon": 127, "lat": 47 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Japanese archipelago", "lon": 137, "lat": 36 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Japanese archipelago", "lon": 137, "lat": 36 }, "to": { "name": "Jiamusi arrival and staging point", "lon": 130.36, "lat": 46.8 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Japanese archipelago", "lon": 137, "lat": 36 }, "to": { "name": "Northern Manchurian settlement frontier", "lon": 127, "lat": 47 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The map connects Japan to Jiamusi, a documented arrival and staging point, and to a broader northern settlement-frontier marker. Jiamusi is not presented as the settlers' final agricultural site. Documented land clearance occurred within the wider northern zone, but no source-bounded destination supports drawing a precise forced-removal arrow.", "evidence": "McDowell: trial emigration from 1932, mass migration from 1936, army and state organization, forced or underpriced land transfers, collective-village removal, settlement on vacated farms, strategic village placement, and collapse in 1945" }, { "id": "gr-roman-ariminum-integrated-colony", "name": "Latin colonial reconstitution of Ariminum", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state-directed Latin colonial reconstitution of an existing settlement on conquered Ager Gallicus", "affectedLabel": "Umbrian or Gallic residents / landholders", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists", "dates": "268 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Sena Gallica / Senigallia", "lon": 13.2188, "lat": 43.7165 }, { "name": "Ager Gallicus — regional allotment zone", "lon": 13.05, "lat": 43.68 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -268, "end": -268, "yearLabel": "268 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "An existing Umbrian and Gallic settlement in conquered Ager Gallicus was reconstituted as a Latin colony.", "contested": "No source establishes complete resident removal, settler or resident totals, or parcel-level succession at Ariminum. Confidence: high on the 268 BCE Latin colony, the existing settlement, conquered regional land, and durable colonial reconstitution; low on settler totals, parcel division, household composition, resident legal shares, movement, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Umbrian or Gallic residents and landholders affected by Ariminum's colonial reconstitution" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Ariminum" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_ariminum_oxford", "v5_roman_ariminum_pbsr" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Ariminum / Rimini", "lon": 12.5683, "lat": 44.0678 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Ariminum / Rimini", "lon": 12.5683, "lat": 44.0678 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Ariminum is present-day Rimini. The line shows the incoming colonial connection from Rome, not a resident-removal route; continued local residence is documented more clearly than any expulsion.", "evidence": "Oxford and Papers of the British School at Rome treatments of the 268 BCE Latin colony, the pre-existing settlement, and its Ager Gallicus setting" }, { "id": "gr-roman-senones-expulsion-sena", "name": "Senone expulsion and Roman colony at Sena Gallica", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "conquest, killing and expulsion of Senone residents, followed by a Roman colony on their territory", "affectedLabel": "Senone communities / expelled survivors", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / colonists at Sena Gallica", "dates": "284–283 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Senone territory in Ager Gallicus", "lon": 13.05, "lat": 43.62 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -284, "end": -283, "yearLabel": "284 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -284, "end": -283, "label": "Roman victory, killing, and expulsion remove Senone survivors from the territory" }, { "start": -283, "end": -283, "label": "The Roman colony at Sena Gallica establishes a successor settlement; the exact year remains disputed" } ] } ], "story": "Senone survivors expelled from their territory and a Roman colony planted at Sena Gallica.", "contested": "The expelled population's destination and count are unknown; Polybius's totalizing phrase is not a census; modern chronology varies between 284 and 283 BCE. Confidence: high on the bounded killing-expulsion-colony sequence; medium on chronology and land scope; low on population totals, destinations, household composition, and survivor demography.", "displaced": [ "Senone communities in Ager Gallicus" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman army and citizen colonists at Sena Gallica" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_polybius_2_19", "v5_roman_jrs_connectivity" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Sena Gallica / Senigallia", "lon": 13.2188, "lat": 43.7165 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Sena Gallica / Senigallia", "lon": 13.2188, "lat": 43.7165 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Sena Gallica is shown on the northern Adriatic. The incoming line marks Roman colonization; no outward expulsion arrow is drawn because neither the Senones' destination nor their number is known.", "evidence": "Polybius 2.19 for the expulsion and territorial outcome; modern chronology and regional cross-check in the Journal of Roman Studies" }, { "id": "gr-roman-friniates-lowland-transfer", "name": "Forced lowland transfer of the Ligurian Friniates", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state-compelled disarmament and internal relocation from mountain country to an assigned plain", "affectedLabel": "Ligurian Friniates and related groups", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Marcus Aemilius", "dates": "187 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, { "name": "Mutina / Modena", "lon": 10.9252, "lat": 44.6471 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -187, "end": -187, "yearLabel": "187 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Friniates and other Ligurian groups disarmed and transferred from hills to plains by Marcus Aemilius.", "contested": "Livy supplies neither a count nor a precise destination and does not identify an incoming population. Confidence: high on a bounded compelled hill-to-plain relocation; medium on its security purpose; low on population share, precise destinations, household composition, tenure, return, and later status.", "displaced": [ "Ligurian Friniates and other Ligurian communities moved from hills to plains" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Marcus Aemilius and the Roman army" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_livy_39_sage", "v5_roman_jrs_connectivity" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Assigned lowland area — precise site unknown", "lon": 10.95, "lat": 44.58 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Friniate Apennine country — approximate", "lon": 10.78, "lat": 44.25 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Friniate Apennine country — approximate", "lon": 10.78, "lat": 44.25 }, "to": { "name": "Assigned lowland area — precise site unknown", "lon": 10.95, "lat": 44.58 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "Livy names movement from hills to plains but not a precise village or destination. Both endpoints are deliberately broad regional markers; the short arrow represents compulsory relocation, not a surveyed route.", "evidence": "Livy 39 and the Journal of Roman Studies cross-check for disarmament and compulsory hill-to-plain transfer; no incoming population is identified" }, { "id": "gr-roman-q-fulvius-ligures-lowlands", "name": "Quintus Fulvius's forced Ligurian lowland concentration", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state-compelled movement to the plains combined with military occupation of the source mountains", "affectedLabel": "Residents of an unnamed Ligurian district", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Quintus Fulvius", "dates": "180–179 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -180, "end": -179, "yearLabel": "180 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "After surrender Quintus Fulvius brought the district's Ligurian population into the plains and garrisoned the mountains.", "contested": "The subgroup, precise source district, precise destination, and whether Livy's 3,200 denotes fighters or all surrendering residents are unresolved; modern dates vary between 180 and 179 BCE. Confidence: high on a separate compelled lowland concentration; medium on chronology; low on subgroup identity, source district, destination, population share, count, household composition, and later status.", "displaced": [ "Residents of an unnamed Ligurian district compelled into the plains" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Quintus Fulvius and the Roman army" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_livy_40", "v5_roman_jrs_connectivity" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Assigned Ligurian lowland area — precise site unknown", "lon": 9.72, "lat": 44.72 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Unnamed Ligurian mountain district — approximate", "lon": 9.55, "lat": 44.38 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Unnamed Ligurian mountain district — approximate", "lon": 9.55, "lat": 44.38 }, "to": { "name": "Assigned Ligurian lowland area — precise site unknown", "lon": 9.72, "lat": 44.72 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "The subgroup, source district, and destination are unresolved. The map uses approximate Ligurian highland and lowland markers and does not equate this operation with the separately documented Apuan transfer to Samnium.", "evidence": "Livy 40 and the Journal of Roman Studies cross-check for surrender, compulsory lowland concentration, and garrisoning of the mountain source area" }, { "id": "gr-roman-cremona-placentia-twin-colonies", "name": "Twin Latin colonies at Cremona and Placentia", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "linked frontier colonies on Gallic land, immediate armed resistance, and later family reinforcement", "affectedLabel": "Boii and Insubres / local landholders", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists", "dates": "218–190 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -218, "end": -190, "yearLabel": "218 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -218, "end": -218, "label": "One commission founds Cremona and Placentia with about 6,000 colonists reported at each" }, { "start": -218, "end": -218, "label": "Gallic resistance immediately threatens the two colonies" }, { "start": -190, "end": -190, "label": "A reported reinforcement of 6,000 families sustains the linked project" } ] } ], "story": "Rome founded Cremona and Placentia together on Gallic land with about six thousand colonists at each site; Gallic resistance followed and a later six-thousand-family reinforcement sustained the two colonies.", "contested": "The evidence does not assign each affected resident or parcel to Boii versus Insubres, prove total removal, or support treating the 190 reinforcement as a fresh land-taking event. Confidence: high on the simultaneous 218 BCE foundations, attributed six-thousand-person stream at each site, Gallic resistance, and later joint six-thousand-family reinforcement; low on Boii-versus-Insubres parcel assignment, resident movement, removal share, casualty proportions, initial household composition, and prior ancestry in the successor communities.", "displaced": [ "Boii and Insubres communities and landholders affected by the two colonial territories" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists and later reinforcing families at Cremona and Placentia" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_polybius_3", "v5_roman_livy_21_25", "v5_roman_livy_37", "v5_roman_cultura_placentia" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Cremona", "lon": 10.0227, "lat": 45.1332 }, { "name": "Placentia / Piacenza", "lon": 9.693, "lat": 45.0526 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Cremona", "lon": 10.0227, "lat": 45.1332 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Placentia / Piacenza", "lon": 9.693, "lat": 45.0526 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The two cities are one statistical event because one commission founded them together and the later reinforcement sustained the same linked project. The lines show incoming settlement, not two separate events or resident-removal routes.", "evidence": "Polybius 3, Livy 21.25 and book 37, plus the Placentia archaeological record for the linked foundations, resistance, and reinforcement" }, { "id": "gr-roman-bononia-boii-land", "name": "Boii land confiscation and the Latin colony at Bononia", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "postwar confiscation of nearly half the Boii territory and ranked allotments to a Latin colony", "affectedLabel": "Boii communities / landholders", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists", "dates": "191–189 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -191, "end": -189, "yearLabel": "191 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -191, "end": -191, "label": "After Boii surrender, Rome takes nearly half their territory" }, { "start": -189, "end": -189, "label": "Bononia is founded with 3,000 Latin colonists and ranked allotments" } ] } ], "story": "After Boii surrender Rome took nearly half their territory and founded Bononia with three thousand Latin colonists and ranked land allotments.", "contested": "The battle totals are source claims rather than census data; neither the half-territory clause nor the foundation notice proves that all Boii residents were expelled from the colonial allotments. Confidence: high on Boii surrender, the attributed near-half territorial taking, the 3,000-person colony, and ranked allotments; low on resident movement, affected-household share, casualty proportions, household composition, local continuity, and prior ancestry in the successor community.", "displaced": [ "Boii communities and landholders affected by territorial confiscation and colonial allotment" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Bononia" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_livy_36", "v5_roman_livy_37", "v5_roman_cultura_bononia" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Bononia / Bologna", "lon": 11.3426, "lat": 44.4949 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Bononia / Bologna", "lon": 11.3426, "lat": 44.4949 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Bononia is present-day Bologna. The map shows the incoming colonial connection; it does not turn the nearly-half-territory clause into a claim that all Boii residents were expelled.", "evidence": "Livy books 36–37 and the Bononia archaeological record for surrender, confiscation, the 3,000-colonist report, and ranked allotments" }, { "id": "gr-roman-mutina-parma-boii-land", "name": "Twin citizen colonies at Mutina and Parma", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "one commission founding two citizen colonies with individual allotments on former Boii territory", "affectedLabel": "Boii communities / rural prior holders unknown", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / citizen colonists", "dates": "183 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -183, "end": -183, "yearLabel": "183 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "One commission founded the twin citizen colonies of Mutina and Parma in former Boii territory with two thousand colonists at each and different allotment sizes.", "contested": "Mutina had a pre-colonial fortified settlement while Parma's city site lacks secure immediate prehistory; neither condition identifies every prior rural landholder or proves total resident removal. Confidence: high on the single 183 BCE commission, two linked sites, attributed two-thousand-person stream at each, former Boii source land, and ranked allotments; low on immediate rural holders, resident movement, household composition, local population shares, and whether later residents represent continuity, return, or migration.", "displaced": [ "Boii and other prior landholders affected by the Mutina and Parma colonial tracts" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman citizen colonists at Mutina and Parma" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_livy_39", "v5_roman_cultura_mutina", "v5_roman_cultura_parma" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Mutina / Modena", "lon": 10.9252, "lat": 44.6471 }, { "name": "Parma", "lon": 10.3279, "lat": 44.8015 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Mutina / Modena", "lon": 10.9252, "lat": 44.6471 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Parma", "lon": 10.3279, "lat": 44.8015 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Mutina and Parma are one event because one 183 BCE commission founded both. Separate lines mark the two sites without claiming total Boii removal or turning each city into a second statistical row.", "evidence": "Livy 39 and the Mutina and Parma archaeological records for the joint commission, reported settler numbers, allotments, and different pre-colonial site histories" }, { "id": "gr-roman-transalpine-gauls-aquileia", "name": "Removal of Transalpine Gauls and the colony at Aquileia", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "forced evacuation of a recent Gallic settlement and successor Latin colonization of the frontier region", "affectedLabel": "Recent Transalpine Gallic settlers", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists", "dates": "186–181 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -186, "end": -181, "yearLabel": "186 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -186, "end": -186, "label": "Rome orders the recent Gallic settlers to evacuate their town and territory and return beyond the Alps" }, { "start": -181, "end": -181, "label": "The Latin colony of Aquileia is founded in the same frontier region" } ] } ], "story": "Rome compelled a recently arrived Gallic group to evacuate its town and territory and return beyond the Alps, then founded the Latin colony of Aquileia in the same frontier region.", "contested": "The removed group were recent unsanctioned settlers who said the land appeared uninhabited and uncultivated; the source does not prove removal of a longstanding Indigenous population or exact parcel continuity with the Roman colony. Confidence: high on the evacuation order and Aquileia foundation; medium on the regional successor relationship; low on exact parcel continuity, the removed count, household composition, and any earlier Indigenous land use.", "displaced": [ "A recently arrived Transalpine Gallic settlement compelled to return beyond the Alps" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman commissioners and Latin colonists at Aquileia" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_livy_39", "v5_roman_aquileia_oxford", "v5_roman_aquileia_livius" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Beyond the Alps — broad return region", "lon": 13.2, "lat": 47.15 }, { "name": "Aquileia", "lon": 13.3676, "lat": 45.7682 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Gallic settlement near future Aquileia — exact site unknown", "lon": 13.34, "lat": 45.78 }, { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Gallic settlement near future Aquileia — exact site unknown", "lon": 13.34, "lat": 45.78 }, "to": { "name": "Beyond the Alps — broad return region", "lon": 13.2, "lat": 47.15 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Aquileia", "lon": 13.3676, "lat": 45.7682 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "One forced line points only to a broad transalpine return region because the destination is not named. A separate line shows colonists arriving from Rome. The sources describe removal of recent settlers, not an Indigenous population.", "evidence": "Livy 39, the Oxford Aquileia treatment, and Livius for the evacuation order, broad return direction, and 181 BCE colony" }, { "id": "gr-roman-salassian-land-eporedia", "name": "Salassian plain-country seizure and the garrison colony at Eporedia", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest-linked loss of plain and gold-working land, mountain survival, and a later Roman garrison colony", "affectedLabel": "Salassi / surviving mountain communities", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / colonists at Eporedia", "dates": "143–100 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Salassian mountain territory", "lon": 7.18, "lat": 45.78 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -143, "end": -100, "yearLabel": "143 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -143, "end": -140, "label": "Roman victory deprives the Salassi of gold workings and plain country; ancient chronology differs" }, { "start": -100, "end": -100, "label": "Eporedia is founded as a Roman garrison while Salassian communities remain in reduced mountain territory" } ] } ], "story": "After war Rome deprived the Salassi of their gold workings and plain country while they retained the mountains; Eporedia was founded as a Roman garrison against them in 100 BCE.", "contested": "Livy dates subjugation to 143 while another ancient epitome may place final victory in 140; exact confiscated parcels and Eporedia allotments are not reconstructed; Velleius's Bagienni placement is erroneous. Confidence: high on Salassian loss of the plain and gold workings, survival in the mountains, and Eporedia's 100 BCE garrison-colony role; medium on the 143 versus 140 conquest chronology; low on confiscated parcels, settler total, household composition, resident proportions, casualty share, and exact return history.", "displaced": [ "Salassi expelled from their plain country and gold workings but remaining in the mountains" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman colonists and garrison community at Eporedia" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_strabo_4", "v5_roman_salassi_openedition" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Salassian plain and Dora Baltea corridor", "lon": 7.62, "lat": 45.55 }, { "name": "Eporedia / Ivrea", "lon": 7.876, "lat": 45.467 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Eporedia / Ivrea", "lon": 7.876, "lat": 45.467 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The map distinguishes the seized plain, the surviving mountain territory, and Eporedia. It shows incoming settlement from Rome but no total-removal route, because the Salassi continued in the mountains.", "evidence": "Strabo book 4 and the OpenEdition study for Salassian land loss, continued mountain territory, chronology limits, and the 100 BCE garrison colony" }, { "id": "gr-roman-pisaurum-ager-gallicus-colony-184", "name": "Citizen colony and allotments at Pisaurum", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "citizen-colony land division within the conquered Ager Gallicus regime", "affectedLabel": "Immediate prior users of the colonial tract unknown", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / citizen colonists", "dates": "184 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Ager Gallicus — regional allotment zone", "lon": 13.05, "lat": 43.68 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -184, "end": -184, "yearLabel": "184 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy reports a citizen colony at Pisaurum in ager Gallicus with six iugera allotted to each colonist, establishing new settler tenure in a conquered land regime.", "contested": "The source does not name the immediate prior users of the colonial parcels or show resident movement; the relation to the 232 BCE viritane distribution must be tested without double-counting the same regional land transformation. Confidence: high on the 184 BCE colony, six-iuger allotments, and conquered regional land regime; low on immediate prior users, resident movement, settler count, household composition, population proportions, and the local share already transformed by the 232 BCE viritane distribution.", "displaced": [ "Immediate prior users of the Pisaurum colonial tract within ager Gallicus" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman citizen colonists at Pisaurum" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_pisaurum_unibo", "v5_roman_polybius_2_21" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Pisaurum / Pesaro", "lon": 12.913, "lat": 43.9102 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Pisaurum / Pesaro", "lon": 12.913, "lat": 43.9102 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Pisaurum is present-day Pesaro. The map treats the 184 BCE local colony as distinct from the 232 BCE regional allotment, while drawing no resident-removal route that the sources do not support.", "evidence": "Livian foundation evidence as synthesized by Lepore and Silani, cross-checked against Polybius's Ager Gallicus sequence" }, { "id": "gr-roman-ager-gallicus-lex-flaminia-232", "name": "Lex Flaminia allotments in Ager Gallicus", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state distribution of individual holdings on territory previously cleared from the Senones", "affectedLabel": "Earlier Senone territory / immediate users unknown", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / individual allottees", "dates": "232 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Sena Gallica / Senigallia", "lon": 13.2188, "lat": 43.7165 }, { "name": "Ariminum / Rimini", "lon": 12.5683, "lat": 44.0678 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -232, "end": -232, "yearLabel": "232 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Polybius links the 232 BCE distribution to territory from which the Senones had earlier been ejected, while other ancient testimony identifies Gaius Flaminius as the law's sponsor; the act created durable Roman individual tenure rather than a new self-governing colony.", "contested": "No recipient total, local parcel map, immediate prior-holder identity, or new 232 BCE resident-removal route survives; the famous policy notice is not a census. Confidence: high on the 232 BCE law, regional distribution, earlier Senone ejection, and durable individual tenure; low on recipient total, local parcels, immediate prior holders, resident movement in 232 BCE, household composition, and overlap with earlier and later regional phases.", "displaced": [ "Senone claimants and any immediate users of the ager Gallicus distribution zone" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Gaius Flaminius and Roman individual allottees" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_polybius_2_21" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Ager Gallicus — regional allotment zone", "lon": 13.05, "lat": 43.68 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Ager Gallicus — regional allotment zone", "lon": 13.05, "lat": 43.68 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The target is a regional Ager Gallicus marker, not a reconstructed parcel map. The line shows the state-backed allotment connection from Rome; it does not imply a new 232 BCE expulsion.", "evidence": "Polybius 2.21 and the source-frozen viritane-allotment review for the law, earlier Senone clearance, and durable individual tenure" }, { "id": "gr-roman-ager-ligustinus-gallicus-allotment-173", "name": "Allotments on war-acquired Ligustine and Gallic land", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "commissioned individual allotments on war-acquired public land whose exact tract and immediate prior users are unknown", "affectedLabel": "Prior users of the unlocated tract unknown", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Roman and Latin-allied allottees", "dates": "173 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Apuan Ligurian Magra and Vara valleys", "lon": 9.92, "lat": 44.16 }, { "name": "Ager Gallicus — regional allotment zone", "lon": 13.05, "lat": 43.68 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -173, "end": -173, "yearLabel": "173 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy describes a ten-man commission distributing land said to have been taken in war and left unassigned, with ten iugera for Roman citizens and three for Latin allies.", "contested": "The source supplies neither a recipient total nor the exact tract, immediate prior users, resident movement, or a secure link to the separately bounded Apuan transfer. Confidence: high on the 173 BCE commission, war-acquired land statement, and ten- versus three-iuger formulas; low on exact tract, immediate prior users, recipient total, resident movement, household composition, population proportions, and any connection to the Apuan transfer.", "displaced": [ "Immediate prior users and claimants of the ager Ligustinus et Gallicus tract" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman citizen and Latin-allied individual allottees" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_livy_42" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Unlocated Ligustine and Gallic tract — regional marker only", "lon": 10.35, "lat": 44.55 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Unlocated Ligustine and Gallic tract — regional marker only", "lon": 10.35, "lat": 44.55 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The target deliberately marks only broad northern Italy: Livy does not locate the tract precisely. The map shows the commissioned allotment program without treating claimed vacancy as proof that the wider region was empty.", "evidence": "Livy 42 and the source-frozen viritane review for the ten-man commission, war-acquired public land, and separate Roman and Latin-allied allotment sizes" }, { "id": "gr-roman-gracchan-ager-gallicus-picenum-allotment-132", "name": "Gracchan allotment between Pisaurum and Fanum", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "surveyed and durably bounded Gracchan land assignment within the Ager Gallicus–Picenum corridor", "affectedLabel": "Immediate prior users of the surveyed tract unknown", "actorLabel": "Gracchan land commission / allottees", "dates": "132 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Pisaurum / Pesaro", "lon": 12.913, "lat": 43.9102 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -132, "end": -132, "yearLabel": "132 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "CIL I2 719 records the 82 or 81 BCE re-establishment of boundary stones originally set by the Gracchan commissioners in 132 BCE between Pisaurum and Fanum, demonstrating a durable local survey and assignment regime.", "contested": "The surviving inscription is a later restoration notice; it does not identify the 132 BCE allottees, parcel sizes, immediate prior users, or resident movement. Confidence: high on the 132 BCE commission boundary and its 82/81 BCE official re-establishment; low on original allottees, parcel sizes, immediate prior users, movement, household composition, and the local shares already transformed in the 232 and 184 BCE phases.", "displaced": [ "Unidentified immediate users or landholders affected by the 132 BCE boundary order" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic and the Gracchan agrarian commission", "Unidentified beneficiaries between Pisaurum and Fanum" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_gracchan_brill" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Between Pisaurum and Fanum", "lon": 13.0013, "lat": 43.8626 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Between Pisaurum and Fanum", "lon": 13.0013, "lat": 43.8626 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The target is the source-bounded corridor between Pisaurum and Fanum. The 82/81 BCE restoration of the boundary stones is evidence for the 132 BCE land order, not a second event or a mapped removal route.", "evidence": "CIL I² 719 as discussed in the Gracchan regional review and Brill study for the original 132 BCE commission and later restoration of its boundary stones" }, { "id": "gr-roman-salassi-enslavement-augusta-praetoria-25", "name": "Salassian enslavement, land seizure, and Augusta Praetoria", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "conquest, coerced transport and slave sale, best-land transfer, and immediate veteran-colony foundation", "affectedLabel": "Captured Salassi / surviving Salassian residents", "actorLabel": "Roman state / Praetorian colonists", "dates": "25–24 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 50, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -25, "end": -24, "yearLabel": "25 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -25, "end": -25, "label": "Captured Salassi are carried to Eporedia for sale; ancient authors disagree over the affected cohort and totals" }, { "start": -25, "end": -24, "label": "Best land is granted to Praetorians and Augusta Praetoria is founded on the former camp" } ] } ], "story": "Strabo says the captured Salassi were carried to Eporedia and sold and that 3,000 Romans founded Augusta on Varro's camp; Dio says military-age Salassi were arrested and sold with a twenty-year manumission bar and that the best land was granted to Praetorians; archaeology confirms the Augustan foundation.", "contested": "Strabo and Dio disagree over who was sold and cannot be harmonized into a census; Strabo's 36,000 and 8,000 figures are attributed ancient claims; slave destinations after the Eporedia market are unknown; a Salassian incolae inscription disproves total ethnic disappearance. Confidence: high on conquest, mass captive sale, best-land transfer, and the immediate Augusta Praetoria foundation; medium on source scope; low on harmonized totals, final slave destinations, resident denominator, and successor ancestry.", "displaced": [ "Salassian communities of the Dora Baltea and Aosta Valley" ], "settlers": [ "Roman state under Augustus", "Aulus Terentius Varro Murena", "Praetorian or veteran colonists at Augusta Praetoria" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_strabo_4", "v5_roman_dio_53_25", "v5_roman_augusta_cambridge" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Eporedia / Ivrea", "lon": 7.876, "lat": 45.467 }, { "name": "Augusta Praetoria / Aosta", "lon": 7.3201, "lat": 45.737 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Salassian communities in the Aosta valley", "lon": 7.32, "lat": 45.74 }, { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Salassian communities in the Aosta valley", "lon": 7.32, "lat": 45.74 }, "to": { "name": "Eporedia / Ivrea", "lon": 7.876, "lat": 45.467 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Augusta Praetoria / Aosta", "lon": 7.3201, "lat": 45.737 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The forced line ends at the documented Eporedia slave market because later destinations are unknown. A separate line shows the incoming veteran colony at Augusta Praetoria. Surviving Salassian residents remain visible in the prose.", "evidence": "Strabo 4, Cassius Dio 53.25, and the Cambridge Archaeological Journal study for transport and sale, best-land transfer, the veteran colony, and the limits of the ancient totals" }, { "id": "ancient-roman-apuan-ligures-resettlement", "name": "Forced resettlement of Apuan Ligurians to Samnium and Roman reuse at Luna", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "Senate-directed family transfer to commissioned allotments, followed by probable Roman colonial reuse of part of the source territory", "affectedLabel": "Apuan Ligurian communities and families", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / commissioners / colonists at Luna", "dates": "180–177 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -180, "end": -177, "yearLabel": "180 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -180, "end": -180, "label": "The first Senate-directed transfer moves Apuan families toward commissioned land in Samnium" }, { "start": -179, "end": -179, "label": "A second transfer continues the same policy and destination system" }, { "start": -177, "end": -177, "label": "Roman citizens receive allotments at Luna on land identified as Apuan; parcel-for-parcel succession remains unproved" } ] } ], "story": "The Roman Republic compelled Apuan Ligurian communities in Livy’s two reported family transfers to move from northwestern Italy to commissioned allotments in Samnium in 180–179 BCE; in 177 BCE, 2,000 reported Roman citizens received allotments at Luna on land identified as Apuan, a probable successor use of part of the source territory rather than a parcel-certain replacement.", "contested": "Livy's reported family totals remain attributed literary figures rather than census-equivalent measurements; Luna is probable reuse of part of the source territory, not parcel-for-parcel replacement. Confidence: high on the forced family transfers and Luna foundation; medium on demographic detail and the source-land linkage; low on parcel-for-parcel replacement.", "displaced": [ "Apuan Ligurian communities" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman commissioners and citizen colonists at Luna" ], "sources": [ "v5_roman_livy_40", "v5_roman_livy_41", "v5_roman_apuan_antiquity", "v5_roman_apuan_samnites", "v5_roman_luna_museum" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Public land near Beneventum in Samnium", "lon": 14.78, "lat": 41.22 }, { "name": "Luna / Luni on Apuan land", "lon": 10.02, "lat": 44.06 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Apuan Ligurian Magra and Vara valleys", "lon": 9.92, "lat": 44.16 }, { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Apuan Ligurian Magra and Vara valleys", "lon": 9.92, "lat": 44.16 }, "to": { "name": "Public land near Beneventum in Samnium", "lon": 14.78, "lat": 41.22 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Luna / Luni on Apuan land", "lon": 10.02, "lat": 44.06 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The forced route runs from the Magra–Vara valleys to public land near Beneventum. A separate incoming line marks the 177 BCE colony at Luna; it is a probable source-land outcome, not proof that colonists received the exact parcels vacated by deportees.", "evidence": "Livy 40–41, the Antiquity study, Samnites, Ligurians and Romans, and the Luni archaeological synthesis for the two family transfers, Samnian destination, and probable Luna successor-land phase" }, { "id": "gr-roman-latin-war-viritane-distribution-340", "name": "Postwar allotments from Latin, Privernian, Falernian, and Campanian land", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "postwar territorial deprivation and state allocation of individual holdings", "affectedLabel": "Latin, Privernian, Falernian, and Campanian landholders", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / individual allottees", "dates": "340 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -340, "end": -340, "yearLabel": "340 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy reports territorial deprivation after the Latin War and individual allotments: two and three-quarter iugera from Latin and Privernian land, or three and one-quarter iugera in Falernian or Campanian territory.", "contested": "The allotment notice does not identify recipient totals, parcel-level prior holders, resident destinations, or whether each source zone experienced the same local outcome. Confidence: high on the linked territorial deprivation and two allotment formulas; low on recipient totals, parcel-level holders, resident destinations, household composition, population proportions, and whether local outcomes differed materially among the four source zones.", "displaced": [ "Latin, Privernian, Falernian, and Campanian communities whose territories supplied allotments" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman individual allottees after the Latin War" ], "sources": [ "b15_livy_8_perseus" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Latin and Privernian allotment zones — broad", "lon": 12.95, "lat": 41.58 }, { "name": "Falernian and Campanian allotment zones — broad", "lon": 14.05, "lat": 41.1 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Latin and Privernian allotment zones — broad", "lon": 12.95, "lat": 41.58 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Falernian and Campanian allotment zones — broad", "lon": 14.05, "lat": 41.1 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The two targets summarize four named source zones; they are not parcel reconstructions. Incoming lines mark state-backed allotment, not demonstrated resident-removal routes.", "evidence": "Livy 8.11 and 8.14 for postwar territorial deprivation and the two reported allotment formulas" }, { "id": "gr-roman-antium-338-colony-integration", "name": "Antium's surrender, colonial reconstitution, and resident enrollment", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest, disarmament, incoming colonization, citizenship, and selective resident incorporation", "affectedLabel": "Antiate residents and landholders", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Roman and Latin colonists", "dates": "338 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -338, "end": -338, "yearLabel": "338 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "After Antium's surrender Rome sent colonists, permitted Antiates who wished to enroll, granted citizenship, and removed the community's naval capacity.", "contested": "The sources do not establish wholesale Antiate removal, exact confiscated parcels, the colonist total, or the share of residents who enrolled. Confidence: high on surrender, incoming colonists, optional Antiate enrollment, citizenship, and removal of naval capacity; low on confiscated parcels, colonist total, household composition, resident enrollment share, and successor population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Antiate residents and landholders affected by surrender, disarmament, and colonial reconstitution" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman and Latin colonists at Antium" ], "sources": [ "b15_antium_wilson", "b15_antium_oxford" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Antium / Anzio", "lon": 12.6217, "lat": 41.4475 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Antium / Anzio", "lon": 12.6217, "lat": 41.4475 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The line shows incoming settlement at the existing city. Antiates who enrolled remained within the reconstituted community; no wholesale removal is mapped.", "evidence": "Livy 8.13–14 and the Oxford Antium synthesis for surrender, colonial settlement, optional Antiate enrollment, citizenship, and naval disarmament" }, { "id": "gr-roman-cales-ausonian-colony", "name": "Capture, land division, and colonial settlement at Cales", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "military capture followed by a commissioned colony and division of Ausonian land", "affectedLabel": "Ausonian residents and landholders at Cales", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / colonists at Cales", "dates": "335–334 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -335, "end": -334, "yearLabel": "335 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Roman capture of Ausonian Cales was followed by a Senate-authorized colony of 2,500 and an explicit commission to establish the colony and divide its land.", "contested": "No source proves total expulsion, parcel-level ownership, or a complete survivor count; archaeological continuity prevents a wholesale-replacement claim. Confidence: high on capture, garrison, attributed 2,500-person colony, commission, and land division; high on archaeological continuity; low on parcel-level ownership, survivor count, resident movement, household composition, legal shares, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Ausonian residents and landholders of Cales affected by conquest and land division" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman and Latin colonists at Cales" ], "sources": [ "b15_cales_livy", "b15_cales_unimi", "b15_cales_archaeometry" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Cales / Calvi Risorta", "lon": 14.128, "lat": 41.216 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Cales / Calvi Risorta", "lon": 14.128, "lat": 41.216 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Cales is the existing center near modern Calvi Risorta. The incoming line marks the colony. Archaeology records local Ausonian cultural carryover, not proof of a complete population replacement or an unchanged population.", "evidence": "Livy 8.16 for the capture, attributed 2,500-person colony, and land commission; Chiesa, pp. 65–87, for Romanization over a local Ausonian cultural substratum; Verde et al., pp. 1145–1184, only for later ceramic production" }, { "id": "gr-roman-tarracina-colony-329", "name": "Citizen colony and allotments at Volscian Anxur–Tarracina", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "citizen-colony land allotment at a continuing Volscian city", "affectedLabel": "Volscian and local holders at Anxur", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / citizen colonists", "dates": "329 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -329, "end": -329, "yearLabel": "329 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "A three-hundred-person colony received two-iuger allotments at the existing city known as Volscian Anxur; archaeological and cult continuity rule out a blank-slate or total-replacement account.", "contested": "The exact parcels, prior holders, resident legal shares, and degree of Volscian participation are unknown; two iugera per colonist do not measure the colony's full common or undistributed land. Confidence: high on the three-hundred-person colony, two-iugera allotments, existing city, and strong local continuity; low on exact parcels, prior holders, household composition, resident legal shares, and the colony's full land endowment.", "displaced": [ "Volscian or local holders affected by allotments at Anxur" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman citizen colonists at Tarracina" ], "sources": [ "b15_velleius_1", "b15_tarracina_treccani", "b15_tarracina_lmu" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Tarracina / Terracina", "lon": 13.249, "lat": 41.291 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Tarracina / Terracina", "lon": 13.249, "lat": 41.291 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Tarracina occupies the existing Volscian center at Anxur. The map shows incoming colonists without erasing the strong evidence of local continuity.", "evidence": "Velleius and the Treccani and LMU archaeological syntheses for the 300-person colony, allotments, existing city, and continuity" }, { "id": "gr-roman-fregellae-contested-colony", "name": "Roman settlement of the contested site at Fregellae", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "Latin colonial settlement at an abandoned or destroyed site in territory claimed by different neighboring peoples", "affectedLabel": "Samnite claimants and Volscian or local land users", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists", "dates": "328 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -328, "end": -328, "yearLabel": "328 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Rome planted a Latin colony at the destroyed or abandoned site of Fregellae in territory claimed by the Samnites and earlier associated with the Volsci.", "contested": "The sources disagree over whether the land was Volscian or Samnite at the point of Roman settlement and do not identify a resident population expelled by the 328 foundation. Confidence: high on the 328 BCE colony, unoccupied town site, contested land, and role as a casus belli; low on whether the land was then Volscian or Samnite, immediate rural users, resident movement, settler total, parcels, household composition, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Samnite claimants and Volscian or local land users affected by Roman settlement of the contested territory" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Fregellae" ], "sources": [ "b15_livy_8_perseus", "b15_fregellae_treccani" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Fregellae — near Ceprano", "lon": 13.535, "lat": 41.499 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Fregellae — near Ceprano", "lon": 13.535, "lat": 41.499 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The colony's site is shown near modern Ceprano. The source-land identity is contested, and no resident population expelled in 328 BCE is invented.", "evidence": "Livy book 8 and the Treccani archaeological synthesis for the 328 BCE foundation, unoccupied town site, and competing territorial claims" }, { "id": "gr-roman-saticula-capture-colony-316-313", "name": "Siege, surrender, and disputed colonial foundation at Saticula", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "Roman siege and capitulation followed by a traditionally dated Latin colony at an uncertain site", "affectedLabel": "Samnite residents and landholders of Saticula", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists", "dates": "316–313 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -316, "end": -313, "yearLabel": "316 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -316, "end": -316, "label": "Roman forces begin the siege of Saticula" }, { "start": -315, "end": -315, "label": "Saticula surrenders after the renewed siege" }, { "start": -313, "end": -313, "label": "A later foundation tradition dates a Latin colony" } ] } ], "story": "Livy's war narrative and the later foundation tradition converge on Roman capture of Saticula followed by a Latin colony within several years.", "contested": "The exact site is unresolved, the foundation is absent from Livy's surviving colony list, and no source gives resident treatment, settler count, or parcels. Confidence: high on capture and medium on the linked foundation; low on exact site, resident treatment, settler count, parcels, household composition, and the settlement's later local demographic order.", "displaced": [ "Samnite residents and landholders of Saticula" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Saticula" ], "sources": [ "b15_livy_9_21_22", "b15_saticula_treccani", "b15_velleius_1" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Saticula — approximate and disputed", "lon": 14.5, "lat": 41.09 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Saticula — approximate and disputed", "lon": 14.5, "lat": 41.09 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The marker is deliberately approximate because Saticula's exact site is unresolved. The line represents the reported colony, not a surveyed route or proved resident expulsion.", "evidence": "Livy 9.21–22 for the 316–315 BCE siege and surrender; Velleius 1.14 for the later foundation chronology; Treccani for the disputed site" }, { "id": "gr-roman-auruncian-destruction-colonial-reorganization-315-296", "name": "Auruncian city destruction and colonial reorganization", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "treachery-assisted capture and severe killing followed by three colonial successor nodes on reorganized Auruncian territory", "affectedLabel": "Auruncian residents and landholders", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / colonists at Suessa, Minturnae, and Sinuessa", "dates": "315–296 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Ausona — approximate destroyed center", "lon": 13.73, "lat": 41.36 }, { "name": "Vescia — approximate destroyed center", "lon": 13.89, "lat": 41.18 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -315, "end": -296, "yearLabel": "315 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -315, "end": -315, "label": "Roman forces seize Ausona, Minturnae, and Vescia and Livy reports uncontrolled killing" }, { "start": -313, "end": -313, "label": "Suessa Aurunca becomes a Latin colonial center" }, { "start": -296, "end": -296, "label": "Minturnae and Sinuessa complete the linked maritime colonial reorganization" } ] } ], "story": "Livy reports that Roman forces entered the three Auruncian cities by treachery and carried out indiscriminate killing; Suessa Aurunca followed in 313 and the linked maritime colonies of Minturnae and Sinuessa in 296 on reorganized Auruncian territory.", "contested": "Livy's totalizing killing language is not a census; Suessa's exact relationship to destroyed Ausona is debated, Sinuessa's site relationship to Vescia is reconstructed, and the nineteen-year sequence does not reveal every survivor or parcel. Confidence: high on the treachery-assisted capture, severe killing claim, and three successor colonial nodes; medium on the regional linkage; low on a resident denominator, survivor incorporation, exact old-to-new footprints, settler totals, parcels, and household composition.", "displaced": [ "Auruncian residents of Ausona, Minturnae, and Vescia", "Auruncian landholders affected by the successor colonial reorganization" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman and Latin colonists at Suessa Aurunca, Minturnae, and Sinuessa" ], "sources": [ "b15_livy_9_25", "b15_auruncian_openedition", "b15_auruncian_land" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Suessa Aurunca / Sessa Aurunca", "lon": 13.93, "lat": 41.24 }, { "name": "Minturnae", "lon": 13.77, "lat": 41.24 }, { "name": "Sinuessa", "lon": 13.85, "lat": 41.15 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Suessa Aurunca / Sessa Aurunca", "lon": 13.93, "lat": 41.24 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Minturnae", "lon": 13.77, "lat": 41.24 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Sinuessa", "lon": 13.85, "lat": 41.15 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Approximate destroyed centers and the three successor colonial nodes are kept distinct. No survivor destination is known, so only incoming colonial lines are drawn.", "evidence": "Livy 9.25 for the attributed city destruction; the OpenEdition Minturnae introduction, paragraphs 2, 4, and 6, and Aucelli et al., section 3.3.5, for the three colonial nodes, chronology, territorial reorganization, and uncertain old-to-new site relationships" }, { "id": "gr-roman-sora-contested-colony-315-303", "name": "Sora's revolt, Roman recapture, and renewed colony", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "anti-colonial revolt, recapture and selective execution, followed by renewed Latin settlement", "affectedLabel": "Soran residents and the earlier colonial body", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists", "dates": "315–303 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -315, "end": -303, "yearLabel": "315 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -315, "end": -314, "label": "Sora revolts, the earlier colonists are killed, and Rome retakes the city" }, { "start": -303, "end": -303, "label": "A renewed Latin colony of four thousand is reported" } ] } ], "story": "Sora's inhabitants killed an earlier Roman colonial body during revolt; Rome recaptured the city, executed leaders while sparing other inhabitants, and after further reversals sent four thousand colonists in 303.", "contested": "The first colony's date and land are unclear; no source gives the 303 parcel map, resident legal shares, or movement, and the spared population must not disappear from the account. Confidence: high on the revolt, killing of the earlier colonial body, selective Roman execution, sparing of most inhabitants, and the attributed four-thousand-person renewed colony; low on the first colony's land, the 303 parcel map, resident legal shares or movement, household composition, and successor population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Soran leaders executed after Roman recapture and local landholders affected by renewed allotment", "The earlier Roman colonial body killed during the Soran revolt" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Sora", "Soran residents acting during the anti-colonial revolt" ], "sources": [ "b15_livy_9_23", "b15_sora_perseus" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Sora", "lon": 13.614, "lat": 41.718 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Sora", "lon": 13.614, "lat": 41.718 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The same city changes hands and receives a renewed colony. The source explicitly spares residents outside the executed leadership, so continuity remains visible.", "evidence": "Livy 9.23, the later foundation notice, and the geographical synthesis for revolt, recapture, selective punishment, and renewed settlement" }, { "id": "gr-roman-luceria-314-destruction-colony", "name": "Punitive recapture and Roman colony at Luceria", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "punitive recapture and killing claim followed by a Senate-authorized colony", "affectedLabel": "Lucerian and Samnite residents and defenders", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / colonists at Luceria", "dates": "314 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -314, "end": -314, "yearLabel": "314 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Roman forces retook Luceria; Livy reports a punitive killing, a senatorial debate over demolition, and the dispatch of 2,500 colonists.", "contested": "Livy's killed-to-a-man formula is an ancient narrative claim rather than a census; the 323 to 314 foundation chronology varies; later Samnite incolae prevent a simple total-replacement claim. Confidence: high on Roman recapture, punitive killing claim, senatorial demolition debate, attributed 2,500-person colony, and later Samnite incolae; low on a casualty or resident denominator, chronology, parcels, household composition, resident legal shares, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Lucerian defenders and Samnite residents and landholders affected by punitive recapture and settlement" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman colonists at Luceria" ], "sources": [ "b15_livy_9_26", "b15_luceria_tota" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Luceria / Lucera", "lon": 15.336, "lat": 41.509 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Luceria / Lucera", "lon": 15.336, "lat": 41.509 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The incoming line marks the colony after recapture. Livy's totalizing killing language is retained as an attributed claim, not converted into a complete population count.", "evidence": "Livy 9.26 and the Roman-Italy synthesis for recapture, punitive killing language, the demolition debate, the 2,500-colonist report, and later Samnite incolae" }, { "id": "gr-roman-pontiae-volscian-colony-313", "name": "Roman colony on Volscian-inhabited Pontiae", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state-backed island colonization on inhabited Volscian land", "affectedLabel": "Volscian inhabitants and landholders of Pontiae", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / citizen colonists", "dates": "313 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -313, "end": -313, "yearLabel": "313 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy identifies Pontiae as an island inhabited by Volsci before the Roman colony; colonial settlement implies allotted land, but no source reports a mass expulsion.", "contested": "The colonist count, allotted area, resident survival or movement, and settlement footprint are unknown; the island cannot be treated as empty or wholly cleared. Confidence: high that the island was inhabited before incoming settlement and medium on a land-taking colony; low on colonist count, allotted area, resident survival or movement, household composition, and settlement footprint.", "displaced": [ "Volscian inhabitants and landholders of Pontiae" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman citizen colonists at Pontiae" ], "sources": [ "b15_livy_9_28", "b15_pontiae_treccani" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Pontiae / Ponza", "lon": 12.962, "lat": 40.894 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Pontiae / Ponza", "lon": 12.962, "lat": 40.894 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Pontiae is present-day Ponza. The island remains large enough to read at the source-inclusive scale; no mass expulsion or wholly empty island is implied.", "evidence": "Livy 9.28.7 for the colony and the statement that Pontia had been inhabited by Volscians; Treccani supplies only general colonization context" }, { "id": "gr-roman-interamna-lirenas-colony-312", "name": "Latin colony and imposed allotment landscape at Interamna Lirenas", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "large Latin colonial foundation and land survey imposed over earlier local settlements", "affectedLabel": "Earlier settlements and landholders in the Interamna landscape", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists", "dates": "312 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -312, "end": -312, "yearLabel": "312 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy reports four thousand settlers; landscape archaeology describes the foundation as imposed at the expense of earlier settlements and identifies a probable early strigatio or scamnatio allotment system.", "contested": "The affected predecessor settlements, resident movement or incorporation, exact first allotment grid, household scale, and relationship to later centuriation are uncertain. Confidence: high on Livy's four-thousand-person claim as an attributed magnitude and on an imposed early allotment landscape; medium on the first survey form; low on predecessor identities, resident movement or incorporation, household composition, exact grid, and later centuriation relationship.", "displaced": [ "Earlier local settlements and landholders affected by the colonial landscape" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Interamna Lirenas" ], "sources": [ "b15_interamna_cambridge", "b15_interamna_treccani" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Interamna Lirenas", "lon": 13.79, "lat": 41.44 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Interamna Lirenas", "lon": 13.79, "lat": 41.44 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The marker identifies the colonial center and landscape, not a reconstructed first allotment grid. The line is incoming settlement, not an undocumented resident route.", "evidence": "Livy's attributed 4,000 settlers and Cambridge landscape archaeology for the imposed colony, predecessor settlements, and probable early allotment system" }, { "id": "prospective-alba-colony-and-aequian-land-sequence", "name": "Aequian town conquest and the colony at Alba Fucens", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "campaign against Aequian towns, settlement of a large fortified colony, and renewed suppression of resistance", "affectedLabel": "Aequian communities and landholders", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / colonists at Alba Fucens", "dates": "304–302 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Aequian fortified towns — broad campaign region", "lon": 13.2, "lat": 42.02 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -304, "end": -302, "yearLabel": "304 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -304, "end": -304, "label": "Roman forces capture and burn numerous Aequian fortified towns" }, { "start": -303, "end": -303, "label": "Six thousand colonists are reported at Alba Fucens" }, { "start": -302, "end": -302, "label": "Renewed Aequian resistance is suppressed; the exact chronology remains an envelope" } ] } ], "story": "Livy directly joins the Aequian campaign, Alba land settlement, and immediate resistance sequence. Marsic resistance and Carseoli colonization concern different peoples and land and remain a separate child.", "contested": "The texts do not locate most captured towns, identify affected-person totals or parcels, or establish complete resident removal; 303 versus 302 chronology remains qualified. Confidence: high on the campaign–Alba sequence and separate Aequian identity; medium on the year envelope; low on town-level outcomes, resident movement, and parcel succession.", "displaced": [ "Aequian communities in the captured towns and territory selected for Alba Fucens, including residents exposed to sack and burning and surviving landholders displaced or subordinated by the colony; incoming Alba colonists are the beneficiary/settler cohort." ], "settlers": [ "The Roman Republic and Senate; consuls Publius Sempronius Sophus and Publius Sulpicius Saverrio in the Aequian campaign; the 6,000 Alba colonists; surviving Aequi who resisted the colony; dictator Gaius Junius Bubulcus and master of the horse Marcus Titinius in the renewed suppression." ], "sources": [ "b15_livy_9_45", "b15_livy_10_1" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Alba Fucens", "lon": 13.413, "lat": 42.081 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Alba Fucens", "lon": 13.413, "lat": 42.081 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The broad Aequian campaign marker is context, while Alba Fucens is the colonial node. No outward resident route is drawn because the texts preserve none.", "evidence": "Livy 9.45 and 10.1 for the Aequian campaign, reported six-thousand-person Alba colony, renewed resistance, and chronology limits" }, { "id": "prospective-carseoli-colony-and-marsic-land-sequence", "name": "Blocked Carseoli settlement, Marsic war, land cession, and colony", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "attempted colonial occupation, Marsic resistance and war, compelled territorial cession, and delayed settlement", "affectedLabel": "Marsi, Aequicoli, and holders in the Carseoli tract", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / colonists at Carseoli", "dates": "302–298 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Marsic towns and ceded land — broad region", "lon": 13.36, "lat": 42.06 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -302, "end": -298, "yearLabel": "302 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -302, "end": -302, "label": "Marsi block the dispatched colonists; Roman war, town capture, and a territorial penalty follow" }, { "start": -298, "end": -298, "label": "The Carseoli colony is established after the earlier failed occupation" } ] } ], "story": "The sources directly identify the Marsic actors, Carseoli tract, blocked occupation, territorial penalty, and later settlement. Parcel-level uncertainty does not merge it with the earlier Aequian and Alba sequence.", "contested": "The texts do not identify ceded parcels, prove that every penalized tract entered the colony, count affected residents, or describe existing Aequicoli occupants. Confidence: high on the blocked occupation, Marsic campaign, territorial cession, and later colony; low on parcel continuity, affected-person totals, and resident movement.", "displaced": [ "Marsi who resisted the Carseoli occupation and the communities of Milionia, Plestina, and Fresilia subjected to capture and territorial penalty; holders in the Aequicoli/Carseoli territory occupied by the later colony; incoming colonists are the beneficiary/settler cohort." ], "settlers": [ "The Roman Republic and the dispatched body of 4,000 colonists; the Marsi who prevented occupation; dictator Marcus Valerius Maximus and master of the horse Marcus Aemilius Paulus; Roman forces that captured Marsic towns and imposed the land cession; later colonial authorities and settlers at Carseoli." ], "sources": [ "b15_livy_10_3", "b15_livy_10_13" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Carseoli / Carsoli", "lon": 13.083, "lat": 42.1 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Carseoli / Carsoli", "lon": 13.083, "lat": 42.1 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Marsic towns and ceded land appear as broad context; Carseoli is the colonial node. The map does not merge this Marsic sequence with the earlier Aequian and Alba event.", "evidence": "Livy 10.3 and 10.13 for the four-thousand-person dispatch, Marsic resistance, captured towns, land cession, and delayed colony" }, { "id": "gr-roman-narnia-nequinum-capture-colony-300-299", "name": "Capture of Nequinum and colonial Narnia", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "betrayal-assisted capture and colonial reconstitution of an existing Umbrian center", "affectedLabel": "Umbrian residents and landholders of Nequinum", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists at Narnia", "dates": "300–299 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -300, "end": -299, "yearLabel": "300 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -300, "end": -300, "label": "After a long siege, insiders enable Roman capture of Nequinum" }, { "start": -299, "end": -299, "label": "A Latin colony is founded at the same center under the name Narnia" } ] } ], "story": "Livy records Nequinum's capture after a long siege and a colony founded there as Narnia; archaeological and later evidence confirm a pre-existing Umbrian center.", "contested": "Resident expulsion, killing, loyalist incorporation, settler count, and parcel division are unknown; treachery suggests internal political division rather than one uniform resident response. Confidence: high on the long siege, betrayal-assisted capture, renaming, same-site colony, and pre-existing Umbrian center; low on killing, expulsion, loyalist incorporation, settler count, parcels, household composition, resident legal shares, and successor population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Umbrian residents and landholders of Nequinum affected by conquest and colonial reconstitution" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Narnia", "Nequinum insiders who enabled the Roman capture" ], "sources": [ "b15_narnia_attalus", "b15_narnia_oxford", "b15_narnia_ucl" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Narnia / Narni", "lon": 12.516, "lat": 42.517 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Narnia / Narni", "lon": 12.516, "lat": 42.517 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Nequinum and Narnia are the same urban center. The line shows incoming colonists, while betrayal evidence warns against treating all residents as one undifferentiated population.", "evidence": "Ancient references, the Oxford site history, and Umbrian-colonization research for the siege, capture, renaming, colony, and pre-existing center" }, { "id": "gr-roman-venusia-291-conquest-colony", "name": "Conquest and large Latin colony at Venusia", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "military capture followed by a very large and durable Latin colonial settlement", "affectedLabel": "Venusian and regional Samnite, Lucanian, and Daunian communities", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists", "dates": "291 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -291, "end": -291, "yearLabel": "291 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Rome captured populous Venusia during the Third Samnite War and established a very large Latin colony there.", "contested": "Dionysius's campaign-wide 10,000 killed and 6,200 surrendered cannot be assigned to Venusia; the reported 20,000 colonists is disputed; the pre-colonial site and local-to-newcomer proportions remain uncertain. Confidence: high on capture, populous prior center, and durable colony; medium on substantial incoming settlement and local co-residence; low on Venusia-specific casualties or surrenders, the disputed 20,000 figure, pre-colonial site, parcels, household composition, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Venusian and regional Samnite, Lucanian, and Daunian residents and landholders affected by conquest and colonial reconstitution" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Venusia" ], "sources": [ "b15_venusia_dionysius", "b15_velleius_1", "b15_venusia_openedition", "b15_venusia_springer" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Venusia / Venosa", "lon": 15.818, "lat": 40.962 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 }, "to": { "name": "Venusia / Venosa", "lon": 15.818, "lat": 40.962 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Venusia is shown as an existing populous center reconstituted by a major colony. Campaign-wide casualty figures and the disputed 20,000-colonist report are not turned into exact local totals.", "evidence": "Dionysius, Velleius, and archaeological studies for capture, the large colony, disputed ancient totals, and probable local co-residence" }, { "id": "gr-roman-curius-sabine-allotment-290", "name": "Curius Dentatus and conquest-linked Sabine allotments", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest-linked distribution of individual holdings to Roman soldiers", "affectedLabel": "Sabine landholders in an uncertain source tract", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Manius Curius Dentatus / soldier allottees", "dates": "290 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -290, "end": -290, "yearLabel": "290 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Frontinus connects Curius Dentatus's Sabine victory to an ordinary soldier's land share. Later tradition gives that share as seven iugera, while the scale, location, and exact date of the broader distribution remain disputed.", "contested": "The date, exact source territory, allotment administration, recipient count, prior holders, and resident movement are disputed or unrecorded. Confidence: medium on a large conquest-linked Sabine distribution; low on exact date, source territory, administration, seven-iugera detail, recipient total, prior holders, resident movement, household composition, and aftermath.", "displaced": [ "Sabine landholders affected by the conquest-linked distribution" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Manius Curius Dentatus and Roman soldier allottees" ], "sources": [ "b16_83957b0ecf35d4", "b16_218b03d1d33911", "b16_71e95771f77ad4" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Sabine conquest and allotment zone — broad", "lon": 12.86, "lat": 42.37 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The target is a broad Sabine land zone, not a parcel reconstruction. No route is drawn because neither the soldiers' physical origin nor any resident destination is documented; 290 BCE is a conventional approximate date.", "evidence": "Frontinus 4.3.12 for the ordinary-share tradition, with later references and modern land-distribution scholarship for the disputed seven-iugera detail and broader Sabine allotment" }, { "id": "gr-roman-hadria-praetuttian-land-colony-290-286", "name": "Latin colony at Hadria after the Praetuttian campaigns", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "Latin colonial foundation on coastal territory absorbed after Roman conquest", "affectedLabel": "Praetuttian holders affected by the coastal land transfer", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists at Hadria", "dates": "290–286 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -290, "end": -286, "yearLabel": "290 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Rome founded the Latin colony at Hadria, best dated to 289 BCE, in coastal territory absorbed after the Praetuttian and Sabine campaigns. The exact legal process and affected holders are unknown.", "contested": "The foundation year, legal character of the land cession, affected holders, resident movement, and allotment scale are disputed or unknown. Confidence: high on the early-third-century foundation and medium on a ceded or partly confiscated coastal strip; low on foundation year, legal transfer character, affected holders, resident movement, settler body, parcels, and household composition.", "displaced": [ "Praetuttian holders affected by the coastal land transfer" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Hadria" ], "sources": [ "b16_7ac5070d630def", "b16_dfea71415ff7a6" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Hadria / Atri", "lon": 13.982, "lat": 42.579 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Hadria is present-day Atri. The colonial town appears within a previously non-urbanized regional landscape; no route is drawn because neither a colonist origin nor prior-resident movement is documented.", "evidence": "Livy's Periochae 11, Piegdoń's colonial synthesis, and Treccani for the 289 BCE foundation and conquest-linked capture of Praetuttian land" }, { "id": "gr-roman-cosa-vulci-land", "name": "Vulcian land transfer and the Latin colony at Cosa", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "post-conquest territorial transfer, ex novo colonial town, and rural allotment", "affectedLabel": "Vulcian and Etruscan rural landholders", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists at Cosa", "dates": "280–273 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Conquered Vulcian territory — broad", "lon": 11.65, "lat": 42.43 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -280, "end": -273, "yearLabel": "280 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -280, "end": -280, "label": "Rome defeats Vulci and takes territory" }, { "start": -273, "end": -273, "label": "The Latin colony at Cosa is established and its rural land divided" } ] } ], "story": "After Vulci's defeat Rome founded Cosa as a new Latin colonial town and divided conquered territory for colonists.", "contested": "No source identifies a displaced city population at the promontory, reconstructs every prior rural landholder, or proves total removal from the allotted territory. Confidence: high on Vulci's defeat, conquered source territory, ex novo colonial center, and rural allotment; low on prior promontory residents, individual rural holders, movement, settler total, household composition, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Vulcian and Etruscan rural landholders affected by the transferred colonial territory" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Cosa" ], "sources": [ "b16_c76547af9a5658", "b16_e71ec5fc80fcf4", "b16_7dab4f7eaec3ab" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Cosa and its colonial territory", "lon": 11.286, "lat": 42.411 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Cosa is an ex novo colonial center within transferred Vulcian territory. No route is drawn because the colonists' physical origin and the destinations of any affected rural holders are not documented.", "evidence": "Velleius and site scholarship for Vulci's defeat, the 273 BCE foundation, and the colonial territory and allotment landscape" }, { "id": "gr-roman-beneventum-samnite-colony", "name": "Latin colonial reconstitution of Samnite Beneventum", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest-linked allotment and colony at an existing Samnite center", "affectedLabel": "Samnite residents and landholders at Beneventum", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists", "dates": "275–268 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -275, "end": -268, "yearLabel": "275 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -275, "end": -275, "label": "Roman victory fixes the conquest setting" }, { "start": -268, "end": -268, "label": "A Latin colony is founded at the existing center renamed Beneventum" } ] } ], "story": "Following Roman victory in Samnite territory, a Latin colony was founded at the existing major settlement renamed Beneventum.", "contested": "Archaeology does not show a traumatic foundation horizon; native aristocratic and Oscan continuity argues against total replacement; exact confiscated parcels and population shares are unknown. Confidence: high on conquest context, existing major settlement, renamed colony, and native aristocratic and Oscan continuity; low on exact parcels, settler total, household composition, resident movement, legal shares, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Samnite residents and landholders affected by conquest and colonial allotment" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Beneventum" ], "sources": [ "b16_c76547af9a5658", "b16_0cd8b3332e3e43" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Beneventum / Benevento", "lon": 14.782, "lat": 41.13 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The colony entered an existing Samnite city. Archaeology supports native and Oscan continuity rather than a blank-slate replacement; no route is drawn because the colonists' physical origin is not documented.", "evidence": "Velleius and the Ancient Samnium synthesis for the foundation, existing center, renaming, land allotment, and strong local continuity" }, { "id": "gr-roman-paestum-integrated-colony", "name": "Latin colony within Greek-Lucanian Paestum", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state colonial settlement and land reconstitution within a continuing city", "affectedLabel": "Greek-Lucanian residents and landholders of Paestum", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists", "dates": "273 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -273, "end": -273, "yearLabel": "273 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Rome founded a Latin colony at Paestum while an established Greek-Lucanian community continued at the site and became closely integrated with the colonial polity.", "contested": "No evidence supports wholesale resident expulsion or a precise partition of land between colonists and Greek-Lucanian residents; the 268 BCE Picentine transfer is a separate later operation. Confidence: high on the 273 BCE Latin colony, the established Greek-Lucanian community, and close subsequent integration; low on settler totals, parcel division, household composition, population shares, and the precise legal position of every continuing resident.", "displaced": [ "Greek-Lucanian residents and landholders of Paestum affected by colonial reconstitution" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Paestum" ], "sources": [ "b16_c76547af9a5658", "b16_1784ef50e1379b", "b16_5c912fe0c0e712" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Paestum / Poseidonia", "lon": 15.006, "lat": 40.423 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The colony was established within a continuing Greek-Lucanian community. No route is drawn because the colonists' physical origin is not documented; this case remains separate from the 268 BCE Picentine transfer.", "evidence": "Velleius, the Paestum archaeological park, and Tota Italia for the 273 BCE colony and subsequent integration of the established community" }, { "id": "gr-roman-picentes-paestum", "name": "Forced transfer of Picentines to the Paestan Gulf", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state-directed cross-peninsular population transfer and creation of a destination community", "affectedLabel": "Picentine communities transferred from Adriatic Picenum", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic", "dates": "268 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Paestum / Poseidonia", "lon": 15.006, "lat": 40.423 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -268, "end": -268, "yearLabel": "268 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Part of the Adriatic Picentine population transferred to the Gulf of Paestum and organized around Picentia.", "contested": "No safe population count or origin settlement is supplied; Strabo's later notice about dispersal after alliance with Hannibal is not automatically the same event. Confidence: high on a bounded Picentine transfer and destination community; low on origin settlements, population share, count, household composition, property outcomes, and return.", "displaced": [ "Picentine communities transferred from Adriatic Picenum" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic" ], "sources": [ "b16_007990d155b92c", "b16_30a58733113a74" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Picentia in the Paestan Gulf region", "lon": 14.872, "lat": 40.648 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Adriatic Picentine homeland — broad", "lon": 13.35, "lat": 43.05 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Adriatic Picentine homeland — broad", "lon": 13.35, "lat": 43.05 }, "to": { "name": "Picentia in the Paestan Gulf region", "lon": 14.872, "lat": 40.648 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "The Adriatic source is deliberately broad because no origin town or safe count survives. The forced route ends in the Picentia region, not at Paestum itself.", "evidence": "Strabo 5.4.13 and the dedicated philological-historical study for a bounded transfer from Adriatic Picenum to the Paestan Gulf in 268 BCE" }, { "id": "gr-roman-brundisium-capture-colony-267-244", "name": "Conquest and Latin colonial settlement at Brundisium", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "Roman conquest followed after an interval by a Latin colony and land redistribution within a continuing Messapian city", "affectedLabel": "Messapian residents and landholders of Brundisium", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists", "dates": "267–244 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -267, "end": -244, "yearLabel": "267 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -267, "end": -266, "label": "Roman occupation or conquest, dated about 267 or 266 BCE" }, { "start": -246, "end": -244, "label": "A Latin colony is founded, dated about 246 or 244 BCE" } ] } ], "story": "Rome occupied Brundisium during the subjugation of Messapia, about 267 or 266 BCE, and later founded a Latin colony at the pre-existing Messapian port, about 246 or 244 BCE.", "contested": "The sources disagree on both dates and do not supply a resident census, a colonist origin, an allotment map, or a complete account of continuity and displacement across the interval. Confidence: high on the conquest-to-colony sequence and the pre-existing Messapian city; low on the exact dates, deaths, colonist number, allotted parcels, resident movement, and the balance of continuity and change.", "displaced": [ "Messapian residents and landholders of Brundisium affected by conquest and colonial redistribution" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Brundisium" ], "sources": [ "b16_0933778d959e48", "b16_13520ce10a9055", "b16_9f91a62b2c19e8" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Brundisium / Brindisi", "lon": 17.934, "lat": 40.636 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The map keeps the Messapian port and later colonial foundation at the same place while the two disputed date ranges remain visible. No movement route or claim of either total removal or total continuity is made.", "evidence": "Velleius 1.14.8, the Princeton site entry, and Oxford and archaeological syntheses for the conquest-to-colony sequence and its disputed chronology" }, { "id": "gr-roman-aesernia-samnite-land", "name": "Latin colony in conquered Samnite land at Aesernia", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "Latin colonial foundation and durable territorial control in conquered Samnite country", "affectedLabel": "Samnite communities and landholders in the Aesernia territory", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists", "dates": "263 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -263, "end": -263, "yearLabel": "263 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Rome founded a Latin colony at Aesernia in 263 BCE in conquered Samnite territory. Archaeological and reference sources disagree about the character of any pre-colonial settlement at the site.", "contested": "The evidence does not identify which residents lost which parcels, whether settlement abandonment occurred, or whether later Samnite residents represent continuity, return, or migration. Confidence: high on the 263 BCE Latin colony, ex novo urban node, named conquered Samnite territory, and durable Roman control; low on affected parcels, immediate prior residents, movement, settler total, household composition, later resident origins, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Samnite communities and landholders affected by the Aesernia colonial territory" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Aesernia" ], "sources": [ "b16_c76547af9a5658", "b16_d3b9f304fe5277", "b16_9f91a62b2c19e8" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Aesernia / Isernia", "lon": 14.238, "lat": 41.596 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The colonial urban node is shown without treating the landscape as empty or claiming that a town population was displaced. No route is drawn because neither colonist origin nor resident movement is documented.", "evidence": "Velleius 1.14.8, the Aesernia survey dataset, and Oxford, Treccani, and southern-Italy syntheses for the colony, conquered Samnite setting, and disputed pre-colonial settlement" }, { "id": "gr-roman-spoletium-colony-land-allotment-241", "name": "Latin colony and Umbrian continuity at Spoletium", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "colonial land assignment at an earlier Umbrian settlement with local incorporation", "affectedLabel": "Umbrian residents and landholders at Spoletium", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists", "dates": "241 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -241, "end": -241, "yearLabel": "241 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Rome founded a Latin colony at an existing Umbrian settlement in 241 BCE and assigned land to it. Earlier settlement, language, and cult traditions persisted, and no expulsion is documented.", "contested": "The assigned parcels, settler number, legal shares, and exact degree of Umbrian incorporation are unknown; no siege, sack, or expulsion should be inferred. Confidence: high on the colony, earlier Umbrian center, assigned land, and local continuity; medium on incorporation; low on settler number, parcels, legal shares, household composition, and the exact composition of the successor community.", "displaced": [ "Umbrian landholders affected by assigned colonial land" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Spoletium" ], "sources": [ "b16_5742379434b9c7", "b16_be71890e01b619", "b16_9cba625f478b0d" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Spoletium / Spoleto", "lon": 12.738, "lat": 42.735 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The map retains the earlier Umbrian center and the colonial foundation at one place. The continuity evidence is qualitative rather than a demographic census, and no colonist or removal route is drawn.", "evidence": "UCL and Italian heritage studies for the 241 BCE colony, assigned land, earlier Umbrian center, and local cultural continuity" }, { "id": "gr-roman-capua-punishment-confiscation-dispersal-211-210", "name": "Capuan executions, confiscation, civic dismantling, and dispersal", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state punishment combining killing, enslavement, forced dispersal, civic dismantling, and conversion of territory to public property", "affectedLabel": "Capuans and allied Campanian communities", "actorLabel": "Roman Senate, magistrates, and army", "dates": "211–210 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -211, "end": -210, "yearLabel": "211 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -211, "end": -211, "label": "Executions, deaths in custody, sale, selective retention, and confiscation follow Capua's surrender" }, { "start": -210, "end": -210, "label": "Further decrees assign differentiated legal statuses and restricted residence" } ] } ], "story": "Livy reports executions and deaths in custody, sale of much of the remaining Campanian population, confiscation of Capuan territory and buildings as Roman public property, selective retention of useful residents, and later decrees dispersing Capuans and allied communities to restricted locations.", "contested": "Livy's narrative does not support a reliable total population denominator or a securely counted incoming Roman settler body in 211-210 BCE; legal dispositions differ by status and place. Confidence: high on executions, sale, differentiated dispersal decrees, civic dismantling, and public-property confiscation; low on a population denominator, complete destination distribution, mortality share, and later return.", "displaced": [ "Capuans and allied Campanian communities punished after defection" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman Senate, magistrates, and army" ], "sources": [ "b16_dc77336f78d2bd", "b16_a9d2d8c3d0e792" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Assigned region across the Tiber — broad", "lon": 12.18, "lat": 42.15 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Capua and confiscated Capuan territory", "lon": 14.253, "lat": 41.106 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Capua and confiscated Capuan territory", "lon": 14.253, "lat": 41.106 }, "to": { "name": "Assigned region across the Tiber — broad", "lon": 12.18, "lat": 42.15 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "The arrow shows only Livy's broad assignment across the Tiber. Other destinations, sale, executions, retained residents, and status differences cannot be collapsed into that single route; Capua remains visible as confiscated public land.", "evidence": "Livy book 26 and Cambridge scholarship for the 211–210 BCE punishment, differentiated population dispositions, confiscation, and civic dismantling" }, { "id": "gr-roman-scipio-veteran-allotments-samnium-apulia-201-200", "name": "Scipio's veteran allotments in Samnium and Apulia", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "one state commission measuring public land in two regions and assigning service-based veteran holdings", "affectedLabel": "Prior users and claimants of measured public-land parcels", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Scipio's veterans / ten commissioners", "dates": "201–200 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -201, "end": -200, "yearLabel": "201 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy records ten commissioners measuring state-domain land in Samnium and Apulia and allotting two iugera for every year served in Spain or Africa to Scipio's veterans.", "contested": "No complete veteran recipient total, local allotment nodes, parcel-level prior holders, or contemporary resident movement survives; not every parcel need have been newly confiscated in 200 BCE. Confidence: high on one commission, two named regions, state-domain measurement, and service-based formula; low on complete veteran total, local nodes, immediate prior holders, resident movement, household composition, population proportions, and which parcels were newly confiscated.", "displaced": [ "Immediate prior users and claimants of state-domain parcels measured in Samnium and Apulia" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Scipio's veterans and the ten-man land commission" ], "sources": [ "b16_13ecb95d09e23f", "b16_71e95771f77ad4" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Measured public land in Samnium — broad", "lon": 14.72, "lat": 41.28 }, { "name": "Measured public land in Apulia — broad", "lon": 15.63, "lat": 41.2 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Both targets are broad public-land regions, not identified allotment nodes. Spain and Africa measured service entitlement rather than establishing a migration origin; no route is drawn because the veterans' immediate origins and prior-resident movement are unknown.", "evidence": "Livy book 31 and modern land-distribution scholarship for one commission, public land in Samnium and Apulia, and the two-iugera-per-service-year formula" }, { "id": "gr-roman-campanian-coastal-colonies-197-194", "name": "Four linked Roman coastal colonies on former Campanian land", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "one colonial commission implementing four coastal settlements and land divisions on former Campanian territory", "affectedLabel": "Campanian landholders and residents in the four colonial tracts", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / citizen colonists", "dates": "197–194 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -197, "end": -194, "yearLabel": "197 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -197, "end": -197, "label": "The linked coastal-colony program is authorized" }, { "start": -194, "end": -194, "label": "Volturnum, Liternum, Puteoli, and Salernum are implemented under one commission" } ] } ], "story": "Rome authorized linked citizen colonies at Puteoli, Volturnum, Liternum, and Salernum in 197 BCE and implemented them in 194 BCE. Livy gives three hundred colonists each for the first three; Salernum's number is unknown.", "contested": "The exact parcels, prior holders, residents' legal positions, and resident movement are unknown; the evidence does not show that every site was empty or that all prior residents left. Confidence: high on the common commission, four Campanian nodes, their former Campanian land, and three-hundred-person cohorts at Puteoli, Volturnum, and Liternum; low on Salernum's count, exact parcels, prior holders, resident movement, household composition, and local population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Campanian landholders and residents affected by the four coastal allotments" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman citizen colonists at Volturnum, Liternum, Puteoli, and Salernum" ], "sources": [ "b16_9e4e8a381cf5f0", "b16_b0ff8dcceb14a5" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Volturnum / Castel Volturno", "lon": 13.99, "lat": 41.032 }, { "name": "Liternum", "lon": 14.047, "lat": 40.957 }, { "name": "Puteoli / Pozzuoli", "lon": 14.121, "lat": 40.824 }, { "name": "Salernum / Salerno", "lon": 14.759, "lat": 40.681 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Four destination nodes show one linked program rather than four statistical events. No routes are drawn because colonist origins and prior-resident destinations are unknown; Buxentum remains a separate land unit and event.", "evidence": "Livy 34.45 and the colonial-foundation synthesis for the common commission, four Campanian nodes, former Campanian land, and three-hundred-person cohorts at Puteoli, Volturnum, and Liternum only" }, { "id": "gr-roman-croton-greek-city-colony-194", "name": "Roman colony within Greek-held Croton", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "Roman citizen-colony settlement within an inhabited Greek city", "affectedLabel": "Greek residents and landholders of Croton", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / citizen colonists", "dates": "194 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -194, "end": -194, "yearLabel": "194 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy says Greeks still held Croton when the Roman citizen colony entered, placing newcomer settlement within an existing community rather than at an empty site.", "contested": "The source does not identify confiscated parcels, expelled residents, local enrollment, or the balance between colonists and Greeks. Confidence: high on the incoming colony and continued Greek possession at the time; low on parcels, colonist number, local enrollment, residents' legal positions, household composition, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Greek residents and landholders of Croton affected by the imposed colonial community" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman citizen colonists at Croton" ], "sources": [ "b16_9e4e8a381cf5f0", "b16_2b0de42498605c" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Croton / Crotone", "lon": 17.115, "lat": 39.08 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The map retains Croton's Greek community at the colonial destination. No route is drawn because the colonists' physical origin is not documented, and no wholesale replacement is claimed.", "evidence": "Livy 34.45 and the Oxford Croton synthesis for the 194 BCE colony and continuing Greek possession" }, { "id": "gr-roman-tempsa-bruttian-land-colony-194", "name": "Roman colony at Tempsa on land taken from the Bruttii", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "citizen-colony allotment on territory explicitly identified as taken from the Bruttii", "affectedLabel": "Bruttian landholders and residents in the Tempsa tract", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / citizen colonists", "dates": "194 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -194, "end": -194, "yearLabel": "194 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy says the territory for the Roman colony at Tempsa had been taken from the Bruttii, who had earlier expelled Greek residents. The 194 BCE colony used that named Bruttian land, but the sources do not describe resident movement at its foundation.", "contested": "The record does not identify which Bruttians occupied particular parcels in 194 BCE, whether anyone moved at foundation, or how the earlier Greek expulsion related spatially to the Roman allotment. Confidence: high on the Roman colony and named Bruttian source land; low on particular parcels and holders, resident movement, settler total, household composition, legal shares, population proportions, and the spatial relation to the earlier Greek expulsion.", "displaced": [ "Bruttian landholders and residents affected by the Tempsa colonial tract" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman citizen colonists at Tempsa" ], "sources": [ "b16_9e4e8a381cf5f0", "b16_c61e483c1c82bd" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Tempsa / Temesa — approximate", "lon": 16.095, "lat": 39.071 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Tempsa's exact site is approximate. The map marks the colonial destination on named Bruttian land without merging the earlier Greek-Bruttian turnover or inventing movement in 194 BCE.", "evidence": "Livy 34.45 and Treccani for the 194 BCE colony, named Bruttian source land, earlier Greek history, and site uncertainty" }, { "id": "prospective-sipontum-colony-on-former-arpian-land-194-bce", "name": "Roman citizen colony at Sipontum on former Arpian land", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state colonial establishment by named commissioners on land identified as formerly Arpian", "affectedLabel": "Prior or contemporary Arpian holders, if any, are unidentified", "actorLabel": "Roman state / named commissioners / citizen colonists", "dates": "194 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Former Arpian land — broad", "lon": 15.54, "lat": 41.47 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -194, "end": -194, "yearLabel": "194 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy records a Roman citizen colony at Sipontum, established by named commissioners on land said to have formerly belonged to Arpi. The acquisition process and any prior occupants are not identified, and the later 186 BCE commission is treated separately.", "contested": "Neither opened source states how the land entered Roman control, whether prior occupants were removed, how many colonists settled, or what parcels were allotted. Confidence: high on the 194 BCE state colonial act, former Arpian land statement, place, and named commissioners; low on acquisition, prior occupants, colonist numbers, parcel division, resident movement, and later continuity.", "displaced": [ "Incoming Roman citizens are the directly identified settler cohort. The source identifies the land as formerly belonging to Arpi but does not identify prior or contemporary Arpian landholders or residents, their number, or whether any person was displaced." ], "settlers": [ "The Roman state; the three colonial commissioners Decimus Junius Brutus, Marcus Baebius Tamphilus, and Marcus Helvius; and the incoming Roman-citizen colonists. Livy does not identify Arpian transferors, occupants, or resisters." ], "sources": [ "b16_d570a99e454907", "b16_e4c3d6fb518b6e" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Sipontum", "lon": 15.901, "lat": 41.616 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Sipontum is the documented 194 BCE colonial node; former Arpian land is broad context. No route is drawn because neither colonist origin nor Arpian removal is demonstrated, and no 186 BCE phase is included.", "evidence": "Livy 34.45.3 and the Princeton site entry for the 194 BCE foundation, former Arpian land, and named commissioners" }, { "id": "gr-roman-buxentum-pyxus-colony-194-186", "name": "Roman colony and supplementation at Greek Pyxus", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "citizen-colony foundation at an existing Greek site, followed by supplementation of the same project", "affectedLabel": "Greek residents and landholders of Pyxus", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / citizen colonists / supplementary settlers", "dates": "194–186 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -194, "end": -186, "yearLabel": "194 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -194, "end": -194, "label": "A Roman citizen colony is founded at Greek Pyxus" }, { "start": -186, "end": -186, "label": "A supplementary commission reinforces the same colonial project" } ] } ], "story": "A Roman colony was planted at Greek Pyxus in 194 BCE; the 186 BCE supplementary colonists and archaeological transformation show an implemented and persistent land reorganization rather than a merely nominal failed foundation.", "contested": "No source establishes that Pyxus's residents were expelled, identifies individual prior holders, or maps the first colonial parcels; replenishment is evidence of continuity of the project, not a second event. Confidence: high on the 194 BCE foundation, 186 BCE supplement, existing Greek site, and implemented durable transformation; low on resident movement, initial and supplementary settler totals, parcels, prior holders, household composition, local enrollment, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Greek residents and landholders of Pyxus affected by the colonial foundation" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman citizen colonists and later supplementary settlers at Buxentum" ], "sources": [ "b17_38d62a31e3590e", "b17_e201a5fca88e3d", "b17_af5e6be7505f83", "b17_ab2599d1b42544" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Buxentum / Pyxus", "lon": 15.52, "lat": 40.07 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Both dates belong to one continuing land project at Buxentum. No route is drawn because neither the colonists' physical origins nor resident movement are documented.", "evidence": "Livy, the 186 BCE supplement notice, and archaeological studies for the two-stage foundation and durable transformation at the existing Greek site" }, { "id": "gr-roman-copia-thurii-land-allotment-193", "name": "Copia colony and redivision of Thurian territory", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "large Latin colonial body, formulaic allotments, and reservation of land for later settlers", "affectedLabel": "Thurian residents and landholders", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists at Copia", "dates": "193 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -193, "end": -193, "yearLabel": "193 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy reports three thousand infantry and three hundred cavalry colonists; allotments were twenty and forty iugera, while one third of the tract was reserved for later colonists, demonstrating a large implemented redivision of Thurian territory.", "contested": "The source does not quantify the total tract, identify each prior holder, show whether Thurians received colonial shares, or establish forced resident movement. Confidence: high on the attributed 3,300-person colonial body, allotment sizes, and reserved third; low on total tract size, prior holders, Thurian colonial shares, resident movement, household composition, and local population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Thurian residents and landholders affected by the colonial redivision" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Copia" ], "sources": [ "b17_4b5c692d219517", "b17_1a4ce927b8f163" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Copia / Thurii", "lon": 16.49, "lat": 39.72 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The map marks a documented territorial redivision at the existing Thurian center. No route or resident-removal claim is made because neither is documented.", "evidence": "Livy 35.9 and colonial-foundation scholarship for 3,300 attributed colonists, twenty- and forty-iuger allotments, and a reserved third of the tract" }, { "id": "gr-roman-vibo-valentia-bruttian-land-colony-192", "name": "Vibo Valentia colony on Bruttian-held Hipponian land", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "large Latin colonial redivision on Bruttian-held and formerly Greek land alongside local continuity", "affectedLabel": "Bruttian and Greek residents and landholders", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Latin colonists at Vibo Valentia", "dates": "192 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -192, "end": -192, "yearLabel": "192 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy reports three thousand seven hundred infantry and three hundred cavalry colonists with fifteen- and thirty-iuger allotments; the land had most recently belonged to Bruttii, who had taken it from Greeks, while archaeology indicates continued Greek and Bruttian presence.", "contested": "The sequence from Greek to Bruttian to Roman control is not a parcel-level chain of title, and the sources do not support total expulsion or demographic replacement in 192 BCE. Confidence: high on the attributed 4,000-person colonial body, fifteen- and thirty-iuger lots, named Bruttian tenure layer, and archaeological Greek and Bruttian continuity; low on parcel succession, household composition, resident movement, legal shares, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Bruttian and Greek residents and landholders affected by the Vibo Valentia allotments" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Latin colonists at Vibo Valentia" ], "sources": [ "b17_5d3656ea4cf019", "b17_bfb59590effbc3", "b17_b7e37364c0e0be" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Vibo Valentia / Hipponion", "lon": 16.1, "lat": 38.67 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The node shows the colonial redivision without turning successive Greek, Bruttian, and Roman tenure into a parcel-by-parcel chain. No route or total-expulsion claim is made.", "evidence": "Livy's figures as preserved in the reviewed source series, the Italian archaeological authority, and landscape scholarship for the 192 BCE allotment and local continuity" }, { "id": "gr-roman-potentia-picene-land-colony-184", "name": "Potentia colony and rural reorganization in Picenum", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "citizen-colony allotment and rural-landscape reorganization over earlier Indigenous farm positions", "affectedLabel": "Picene and other Indigenous farmers and landholders", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / citizen colonists at Potentia", "dates": "184 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -184, "end": -184, "yearLabel": "184 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy reports six-iuger allotments to colonists at Potentia; landscape archaeology indicates that the colonial countryside reorganized earlier settlement and that Roman farms occupied positions previously used by Indigenous farmers.", "contested": "Archaeology shows changed rural use but not a resident census, named displaced households, or a single outward movement route; overlap with the broader Picentine conquest-transfer parent requires final review. Confidence: high on six-iuger allotments and archaeological rural reorganization over earlier Indigenous farm positions; low on named households, resident movement, settler count, household composition, population proportions, and the spatial overlap with the earlier Picentine conquest-transfer event.", "displaced": [ "Picene and other Indigenous farmers and landholders affected by the Potentia colonial countryside" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman citizen colonists at Potentia" ], "sources": [ "b17_c5620a26e775f9", "b17_0ae497cc95faab", "b17_8c127fde15a804" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Potentia territory near Porto Recanati — schematic", "lon": 13.41, "lat": 43.555 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Potentia is a later local land-use phase, not another rendering of the earlier Picentine transfer. Its coastal territory is marked schematically against the atlas's generalized shoreline; changed rural use is shown without inventing displaced households or an outward route.", "evidence": "Livy 39.44 and landscape archaeology for six-iuger allotments and colonial farms occupying positions previously used by Indigenous farmers" }, { "id": "gr-roman-saturnia-caletran-land-colony-183", "name": "Saturnia colony and allotments in ager Caletranus", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "citizen-colony allotment and bounded survey reorganization at a continuing Etruscan center", "affectedLabel": "Etruscan and local landholders in ager Caletranus", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / citizen colonists at Saturnia", "dates": "183 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -183, "end": -183, "yearLabel": "183 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy reports ten-iuger colonial allotments in ager Caletranus; archaeological and survey evidence indicates a bounded colonial land division alongside continued occupation at the older Etruscan center.", "contested": "The evidence does not identify individual prior holders, the full assigned area, local enrollment, or forced movement; limited centuriation and rural continuity rule out a total-replacement claim. Confidence: high on ten-iuger allotments, the bounded colonial survey, older Etruscan center, and continued occupation; low on individual prior holders, full assigned area, local enrollment, resident movement, settler count, household composition, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Etruscan and local landholders affected by allotments in ager Caletranus" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman citizen colonists at Saturnia" ], "sources": [ "b17_98d3992f427abf", "b17_1ffc91b708c53a", "b17_a38cd8859bf694" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Saturnia", "lon": 11.5, "lat": 42.67 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The bounded colonial node coexists with evidence of continued occupation. No route is drawn and no total replacement is claimed.", "evidence": "Livy's ten-iuger allotment notice as reviewed with Treccani and survey scholarship for the bounded division and continued occupation" }, { "id": "gr-roman-graviscae-tarquinian-land-colony-181", "name": "Graviscae colony on land taken from Tarquinii", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "citizen-colony allotment at an existing Etruscan port on named Tarquinian land", "affectedLabel": "Tarquinian and local landholders in the colonial tract", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / citizen colonists at Graviscae", "dates": "181 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -181, "end": -181, "yearLabel": "181 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy says the colony was established in Etruscan territory on land formerly taken from Tarquinii and reports five-iuger allotments, establishing a local bridge from Roman seizure to settler tenure.", "contested": "The source does not identify parcel-level Tarquinian holders, resident movement, or whether port inhabitants entered the colonial community; an existing port need not have been emptied. Confidence: high on the named Tarquinian source land, existing port, and five-iuger allotments; low on parcel-level holders, resident movement, local enrollment, settler count, household composition, legal shares, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Tarquinian and local landholders affected by the Graviscae colonial tract" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman citizen colonists at Graviscae" ], "sources": [ "b17_0f4f82a4d9ef38" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Graviscae, port of Tarquinii", "lon": 11.74, "lat": 42.23 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The colonial node marks a bridge from named territorial seizure to five-iuger tenure. An existing port need not have been empty, and no resident movement is shown.", "evidence": "Livy 40.29 and land-surveyor scholarship for the existing port, former Tarquinian land, and five-iuger allotments" }, { "id": "gr-roman-gracchan-vallo-diano-lucania-allotment-132-130", "name": "Gracchan survey and allotment in the Vallo di Diano", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state survey and allotment across one connected Lucanian public-land zone", "affectedLabel": "Unidentified prior occupiers or landholders in the surveyed zone", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Gracchan agrarian commission / unidentified beneficiaries", "dates": "132–130 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -132, "end": -130, "yearLabel": "132 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Nine Gracchan commission stones are reported from Lucania; CIL I2 639 at Atina names the commissioners in 131 BCE and marks a cardo and decumanus, while stones near Atina, Cosilinum, and Tegianum document surveyed public land in the Vallo di Diano.", "contested": "The archive is source-dense but not a census: prior occupiers, recipient totals, exact parcels transferred, and resident movement are mostly unknown; the Polla inscription cannot automatically be treated as another description of the commission. Confidence: high on the 132–130 BCE commission, nine-stone regional series, cardo-decumanus survey language, and contiguous Vallo implementation; low on prior occupiers, allottees, exact transferred parcels, movement, household composition, and the relationship to the separate Polla evidence hold.", "displaced": [ "Unidentified prior occupiers or landholders affected by the surveyed public-land division" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic and the Gracchan agrarian commission", "Unidentified beneficiaries of the Vallo di Diano allotments" ], "sources": [ "b17_87f27d58128945", "b17_6da9f5d0d5d3cd", "b17_9112dac1599c76" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Atina / Atena Lucana", "lon": 15.56, "lat": 40.45 }, { "name": "Cosilinum / Padula", "lon": 15.66, "lat": 40.34 }, { "name": "Tegianum / Teggiano", "lon": 15.54, "lat": 40.38 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Three nodes represent one connected valley implementation documented by a nine-stone regional series. They are not three events; the separate Polla inscription remains outside this case.", "evidence": "CIL boundary stones, the Vallo di Diano survey study, and public-land scholarship for the 132–130 BCE commission and connected regional grid" }, { "id": "gr-roman-gracchan-northern-campania-land-division-131", "name": "Gracchan land division in northern Campania", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state survey, adjudication, and land division in a bounded zone near Capua", "affectedLabel": "Unidentified occupiers or landholders within the surveyed zone", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Gracchan agrarian commission / unidentified beneficiaries", "dates": "131 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -131, "end": -131, "yearLabel": "131 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "CIL I2 640 records the Gracchan commissioners on a 131 BCE boundary stone found at Sant'Angelo in Formis near Capua; the stone marks a surveyed grid, demonstrating implementation of adjudication and land division in the northern Campanian landscape.", "contested": "The stone does not identify allottee numbers, previous occupiers, parcels taken from specific people, or any resident destination; Cicero's later claim that the Gracchi did not touch the ager Campanus makes the exact territorial scope contentious. Confidence: high on the 131 BCE commission stone, surveyed grid, and locally implemented land division; medium on durability of the bounded land order; low on the exact footprint, allottees, prior occupiers, parcel succession, resident movement, household composition, and population effects.", "displaced": [ "Unidentified occupiers or landholders whose interests were altered within the surveyed zone" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic and the Gracchan agrarian commission", "Unidentified beneficiaries of the northern Campanian division" ], "sources": [ "b17_1df8fc82f0371c", "b17_3a799706d7de82" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Sant'Angelo in Formis survey zone near Capua", "lon": 14.25, "lat": 41.12 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The point marks the securely attested survey zone near Sant'Angelo in Formis, not the whole ager Campanus. No person-scale movement is documented.", "evidence": "CIL I2 640 and modern review for the 131 BCE commissioners' stone, surveyed grid, and disputed wider Campanian scope" }, { "id": "gr-roman-gracchan-northern-apulia-allotment-130", "name": "Gracchan small-farm assignment in northern Apulia", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state survey and small-farm assignment in a bounded northern Apulian public-land zone", "affectedLabel": "Unidentified prior occupiers or landholders in the supported zone", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Gracchan agrarian commission / unidentified beneficiaries", "dates": "130 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -130, "end": -130, "yearLabel": "130 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "A Gracchan commission boundary stone from Celenza Valfortore is dated about 130 BCE; two or more stones from the area and archaeological evidence support parceling of relatively level public land in northern Apulia into small farms, while Canusium and several unsurveyed zones remained outside the operation.", "contested": "Overlapping centuriation grids have several possible dates; the stones do not identify allottees or dispossessed occupiers, and evidence does not support treating all Apulia or the Apulian-Lucanian border as redistributed. Confidence: high on the c. 130 BCE commission stone and bounded northern Apulian implementation; medium on small-farm parceling in the supported landscape; low on grid chronology beyond the anchored zone, allottees, dispossessed holders, movement, household composition, and any southern extension.", "displaced": [ "Unidentified prior occupiers or landholders affected in the supported northern-plain zone" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic and the Gracchan agrarian commission", "Unidentified small-farm beneficiaries in northern Apulia" ], "sources": [ "b17_f579b09618d6e3", "b17_6485dfe76154ca" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Celenza Valfortore boundary-stone zone", "lon": 14.98, "lat": 41.56 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The map is anchored to the Celenza Valfortore stone and does not generalize the operation to all Apulia or the whole Apulian–Lucanian border.", "evidence": "The Italian archaeological service's Celenza stone report and public-land synthesis for a c. 130 BCE bounded northern Apulian implementation" }, { "id": "gr-roman-gracchan-hirpinian-land-adjudication-130-123", "name": "Gracchan land adjudication in eastern Hirpinia", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "repeated state adjudication of established estates and assignable public land, including explicit retention", "affectedLabel": "Occupiers and landholders whose claims were adjudicated or reduced", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / successive agrarian commissioners / unidentified beneficiaries", "dates": "130–123 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -130, "end": -123, "yearLabel": "130 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -130, "end": -129, "label": "Commission stones record adjudication and assignment around Aeclanum" }, { "start": -123, "end": -123, "label": "A later commission continues the regional boundary program" } ] } ], "story": "Boundary stones around Aeclanum and eastern Hirpinia record the agrarian commissioners from about 130-129 BCE and again in 123 BCE; several explicitly distinguish estates of established occupiers allowed to remain, showing adjudication, retention, and assignable-land boundaries within one continuing regional program.", "contested": "The stones map legal boundaries rather than population movement; they preserve no allottee count, no list of displaced holders, no route, and no proof that every surveyed estate changed hands. Confidence: high on repeated 130–123 BCE commission activity, boundary adjudication, explicit retained estates, and assignable-land distinctions; low on allottee totals, displaced holders, movement, household composition, changed-land share, and demographic outcomes.", "displaced": [ "Occupiers and landholders whose claims were adjudicated or reduced around Aeclanum and eastern Hirpinia" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic and successive Gracchan agrarian commissioners", "Unidentified beneficiaries of Hirpinian assignments" ], "sources": [ "b17_a42e71dc2def00", "b17_b138ad0e32e62f", "b17_b17ab49b47819d" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Aeclanum / Mirabella Eclano", "lon": 15, "lat": 41.05 }, { "name": "Eastern Hirpinian adjudication zone — broad", "lon": 15.2, "lat": 41 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Two phases show a continuing regional legal program, not two demographic events. The stones preserve retained estates as well as assignable land; no route is warranted.", "evidence": "CIL stones and archaeological scholarship for repeated commission activity, retained estates, and assignable-land boundaries from about 130 to 123 BCE" }, { "id": "gr-roman-fregellae-destruction-fabrateria", "name": "Destruction of Fregellae and the nearby foundation of Fabrateria Nova", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state destruction and durable urban clearance after revolt, followed by a nearby successor foundation", "affectedLabel": "Residents and rural communities of Fregellae", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Roman forces / founders of Fabrateria Nova", "dates": "125–124 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -125, "end": -124, "yearLabel": "125 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -125, "end": -125, "label": "Fregellae surrenders and is deliberately destroyed" }, { "start": -124, "end": -124, "label": "Fabrateria Nova is founded nearby; some survivor relocation is possible but unproven" } ] } ], "story": "After Fregellae's revolt and surrender, Rome sacked and destroyed the city. Fabrateria Nova was founded nearby the following year, but the evidence does not establish a wholesale transfer of Fregellan survivors.", "contested": "No source provides a survivor count, proves that all residents moved to Fabrateria Nova, or establishes outsider replacement at Fregellae; the exact relationship between destroyed urban land and the new foundation remains partly inferential. Confidence: high on surrender, sack, deliberate urban destruction, broad rural-site contraction, durable abandonment, and Fabrateria Nova's next-year foundation; medium on partial survivor relocation; low on survivor and death counts, precise routes, retained activity, parcel succession, and the exact relationship between old and new territories.", "displaced": [ "Residents and rural communities of Fregellae displaced by destruction and abandonment" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Roman forces and the founders of Fabrateria Nova" ], "sources": [ "b17_e673c2f186510a", "b17_99eed450a55a46", "b17_0d8cf8b555de8b", "b17_79945e4351b0ed", "b17_e3ab3286ee3a1d" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Fregellae / Arce-Ceprano", "lon": 13.48, "lat": 41.54 }, { "name": "Fabrateria Nova / San Giovanni Incarico", "lon": 13.56, "lat": 41.5 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The two nodes show destruction and a nearby successor foundation. No arrow joins them because survivor movement to Fabrateria is possible rather than demonstrated.", "evidence": "Livy's Periochae and archaeological projects for the surrender, destruction, durable contraction, and next-year foundation of Fabrateria Nova" }, { "id": "gr-roman-scolacium-minervia-gracchan-colony-123-122", "name": "Minervia Scolacium colony at Greek Skylletion", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "Gracchan settlement and survey reorganization of an older Greek urban and rural territory", "affectedLabel": "Greek and local residents and landholders of Skylletion", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Gracchan colonial program / colonists", "dates": "123–122 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -123, "end": -122, "yearLabel": "123 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "The colony occupied the earlier Greek site of Skylletion, and official archaeological synthesis describes reorganization of both the urban area and its rural territory through centuriation.", "contested": "The evidence does not identify the movement or legal share of existing inhabitants, individual prior holders, or a forced expulsion; the disputed 199 BCE Castrum notice cannot be used as an earlier Scolacium phase. Confidence: high on the implemented colony, older Greek site, and urban-and-territorial centuriation; low on individual prior holders, resident movement, legal shares, settler count, household composition, population proportions, and any connection to the disputed 199 BCE Castrum notice.", "displaced": [ "Greek and local residents and landholders of Skylletion affected by urban and rural centuriation" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic and the Gracchan colonial program", "Colonists at Minervia Scolacium" ], "sources": [ "b17_51baedc30b4d15", "b17_f3aec93b327085", "b17_0bf2458faaba29" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Minervia Scolacium / Skylletion", "lon": 16.59, "lat": 38.82 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The colony reorganized an older Greek site and countryside. The disputed 199 BCE Castrum notice is excluded, and no resident-removal route is drawn.", "evidence": "The Free University Berlin project and Italian heritage authority for the implemented colony, older Greek site, and urban-and-rural centuriation" }, { "id": "gr-roman-tarentum-neptunia-gracchan-colony-123-122", "name": "Neptunia colony on Tarentine public land", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "Gracchan colonial settlement and public-land redivision beside a continuing Greek city", "affectedLabel": "Greek Tarentine residents and users of ager publicus", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Gracchan colonial program / colonists", "dates": "123–122 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -123, "end": -122, "yearLabel": "123 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "The Gracchan colony was planted on Tarentine ager publicus; archaeological and institutional evidence indicates that colonists settled at the edge of the Greek city and that the colonial and Greek communities coexisted as distinct legal bodies until later integration.", "contested": "The foundation evidence does not identify a 123/122 BCE expulsion, individual prior holders, or how much public land remained in Greek use; the earlier creation of ager publicus must not be duplicated as a second contemporary seizure. Confidence: high on the implemented colony, public-land setting, edge-of-city settlement, distinct Greek and colonial legal communities, and later integration; low on individual prior holders, exact public-land shares, settler count, household composition, resident movement, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Greek Tarentine residents and land users affected by redivision of ager publicus" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic and the Gracchan colonial program", "Colonists at Neptunia" ], "sources": [ "b17_d2e2f52910fa07", "b17_657b08dec60c1c", "b17_e38bf609b94f22", "b17_4d1c66fe6cee62" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Neptunia at Tarentum / Taranto", "lon": 17.23, "lat": 40.47 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The colonial and Greek communities coexisted as distinct legal bodies before later integration. The earlier creation of public land is context, not a second 123/122 BCE seizure.", "evidence": "MArTA, the Italian Ministry of Culture, and public-land scholarship for the edge-of-city colony, public-land setting, and legal coexistence" }, { "id": "gr-roman-narbo-martius-colony-volcae-land-118", "name": "Narbo Martius in the lower Aude", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "civilian colonial settlement and centuriated land reorganization within a continuing Indigenous landscape", "affectedLabel": "Indigenous communities and landholders within the lower Aude colonial territory", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic / Italian civilian colonists", "dates": "118 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Montlaurès, continuing Indigenous center", "lon": 2.98, "lat": 43.23 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -118, "end": -118, "yearLabel": "118 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "A Roman civilian colony was founded at Narbo Martius in 118 BCE. Italian settlers entered a delimited and mostly centuriated territory while Montlaurès and other Indigenous communities continued nearby.", "contested": "No source identifies an expelled population or parcel-by-parcel prior ownership. The Atacini were later associated with Narbo, but scholars disagree about their identity and when incorporation occurred; the clearest collective-integration hypothesis belongs to the later Caesarian refoundation. Confidence: high on the 118 BCE civilian colony, broad Italian settler origin, delimited and mostly centuriated territory, and continuing Indigenous sites; low on settler totals, individual prior parcels, household composition, Indigenous legal shares, Atacine identity and incorporation date, and population proportions.", "displaced": [ "Indigenous communities and landholders in the lower Aude colonial territory; specific identities and legal shares remain disputed" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic", "Italian civilian colonists at Narbo Martius" ], "sources": [ "b17_73893e36ce99ef", "b17_f26e3e46f8b3c7", "b17_e535091ae4878c", "b17_29a54b1c33a1f2" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Narbo Martius / Narbonne", "lon": 3, "lat": 43.18 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Italian peninsula — broad civilian origin", "lon": 12.4, "lat": 42 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Italian peninsula — broad civilian origin", "lon": 12.4, "lat": 42 }, "to": { "name": "Narbo Martius / Narbonne", "lon": 3, "lat": 43.18 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Narbo's colonial territory is shown beside continuing Montlaurès. The broad origin marks Italian civilians rather than Rome specifically. The 118 BCE foundation is not made responsible for Montlaurès's later disappearance near the separate Caesarian deduction.", "evidence": "Velleius 1.15.5 for the 118 BCE chronology; Carayon and the Narbo studies for the colonial territory and Indigenous continuity; Ugolini and Olive for the disputed Atacine identity and incorporation date" }, { "id": "gr-roman-sulla-pompeii-80", "name": "Sullan veteran colony and old Pompeians at Pompeii", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "veteran settlement and partial confiscation within a continuing community with unequal colonial rights", "affectedLabel": "Old Pompeian residents and landholders", "actorLabel": "Sullan Roman state / veteran colonists", "dates": "80–62 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -80, "end": -62, "yearLabel": "80 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -80, "end": -80, "label": "Veterans establish a colony and at least some Pompeian land is confiscated" }, { "start": -62, "end": -62, "label": "Old Pompeians and colonists still dispute voting, access, and land interests" } ] } ], "story": "Veterans founded a colony in the territory of the existing Pompeian community; at least some land was confiscated, the old Pompeians remained, and the two groups still disputed voting, access, and land interests in 62 BCE.", "contested": "The confiscated parcels, number of colonists, affected-household share, and exact restoration of old Pompeian rights are not recoverable; Cicero is an advocate, not a neutral census. Confidence: high on veteran settlement, at least partial confiscation, old-resident continuity, and the documented 62 BCE dispute over voting, access, and land interests; low on parcels, colonist count, affected-household share, household composition, and the exact restoration of old Pompeian rights.", "displaced": [ "Old Pompeian residents and landholders affected by confiscation and unequal colonial rights" ], "settlers": [ "Sullan Roman state", "Sullan veteran colonists at Pompeii" ], "sources": [ "b17_de327ddd9356a8", "b17_8d5e109494f916" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Pompeii", "lon": 14.49, "lat": 40.75 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Both groups occupied Pompeii; the eighteen-year sequence is one unresolved colonial relationship, not two events. No route or total-expulsion claim is made.", "evidence": "Cicero's Pro Sulla and the source-frozen Sullan review for veteran settlement, partial confiscation, old-resident continuity, and the 62 BCE dispute" }, { "id": "atlas-canary-lanzarote-fuerteventura-conquest-1402-1405", "name": "Norman-Castilian conquest and early settlement of Lanzarote and Fuerteventura", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "linked Norman-Castilian conquest and early colonial settlement on two eastern islands", "affectedLabel": "Majos of Lanzarote and Fuerteventura", "actorLabel": "Norman expedition leaders under Castilian authority / early settlers", "dates": "1402–1405 CE", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 78, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "markerScale": 0.7, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Northwest African coast", "lon": -13, "lat": 28.8 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1402, "end": 1405, "yearLabel": "1,402 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "The linked expedition seized Lanzarote and Fuerteventura between 1402 and 1405 and established the first durable European settler sites in the archipelago.", "contested": "The sources leave the battle sequence, captive and settler totals, parcel divisions, household durability, and the exact 1404/1405 endpoint unresolved. They identify Norman expeditionaries and settlers, but not one sufficiently bounded population-flow origin for a map route.", "displaced": [ "The Indigenous Majos or Mayos of Lanzarote and Fuerteventura, subjected within a conquest pattern of warfare, deportation, enslavement, and settler land division; individual and island-specific outcomes are not generalized beyond the opened evidence" ], "settlers": [ "Jean de Béthencourt, Gadifer de la Salle, and Norman expeditionaries acting on their own initiative in the name of or with the consent of Castile; early Norman settlers" ], "sources": [ "b18_7a544bc2325d6c", "b18_9ce9a75d33c465", "b18_f33fbdbfde578a" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Lanzarote", "lon": -13.62, "lat": 29.03 }, { "name": "Fuerteventura", "lon": -14, "lat": 28.35 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The two eastern islands belong to one expedition and early settlement phase. The Northwest African coast remains visible for context; no mainland route is inferred from the expedition leaders' political or regional identities.", "evidence": "Peer-reviewed archaeological synthesis and the Canary conquest chronology for the linked 1402–1405 expedition, early settler sites, and island-specific limits" }, { "id": "atlas-canary-gran-canaria-conquest-1478-1483", "name": "Castilian Crown conquest and land division of Gran Canaria", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "Crown military conquest, killing, deportation and enslavement, followed by colonial land division", "affectedLabel": "Indigenous Canarios of Gran Canaria", "actorLabel": "Crown of Castile / expedition commanders / soldiers and settlers", "dates": "1478–1483 CE", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 70, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "markerScale": 0.7, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Northwest African coast", "lon": -13, "lat": 28.8 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1478, "end": 1483, "yearLabel": "1,478 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "A Crown campaign begun in 1478 defeated Gran Canaria's Indigenous polities by 1483. Warfare, deportation and enslavement were followed by colonial land division and settlement.", "contested": "The opened locators do not supply a complete Indigenous or settler census, parcel register, campaign-stage chronology, or person-level destination record. Crown identity is not converted into a settler-origin route.", "displaced": [ "Indigenous people and communities of Gran Canaria subjected to conquest, warfare, deportation, enslavement, or the post-conquest division of island land; the opened passages do not assign identical outcomes to every person" ], "settlers": [ "The Catholic Monarchs and Castilian Crown; Bishop Juan de Frías; Captain Juan Rejón; Pedro de Vera; Castilian expeditionary forces" ], "sources": [ "b18_c303bf8511f271", "b18_86b5060637ff4a", "b18_8c965fb81e71da", "b18_e4f8be852be128" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Gran Canaria", "lon": -15.58, "lat": 27.96 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "One island-level event replaces the archipelago wrapper. No outward removal route is drawn because deportation and enslavement destinations are not recoverable as one bounded path.", "evidence": "Espino López and peer-reviewed archaeological synthesis for the 1478–1483 campaign, coercive removals, and post-conquest land division" }, { "id": "atlas-canary-la-gomera-revolt-repression", "name": "Repression and enslavement after the La Gomera revolt", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "punitive expedition, execution, enslavement, sale, and off-island coercive removal after revolt", "affectedLabel": "Gomeros targeted after the 1488 revolt and killing of Hernán Peraza", "actorLabel": "Beatriz de Bobadilla / Pedro de Vera and troops from Gran Canaria", "dates": "1488–1489 CE", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 24, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "markerScale": 0.7, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Northwest African coast", "lon": -13, "lat": 28.8 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1489, "end": 1489, "yearLabel": "1489 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "After Gomeros killed the island's seigneur Hernán Peraza on 20 November 1488, Beatriz de Bobadilla called Pedro de Vera from Gran Canaria. The relief and punitive sequence extended into 1489 and included executions, mutilation, enslavement, sale, and off-island coercive removal beyond the identified killers.", "contested": "The sources do not provide complete victim or captive totals, parcel outcomes, a beneficiary register, or a complete destination network. The line from Gran Canaria shows the documented punitive force, not movement by the people targeted.", "displaced": [ "Gomero communities subjected to the 1488–1489 punitive executions, mutilation, enslavement, sale, and off-island removal" ], "settlers": [ "Beatriz de Bobadilla, Pedro de Vera, and the punitive force sent from Gran Canaria" ], "sources": [ "b18_e1b2f680ff85d7", "b18_a4dd386a7112fd" ], "targets": [ { "name": "La Gomera / Garajonay", "lon": -17.24, "lat": 28.11 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Gran Canaria", "lon": -15.58, "lat": 27.96 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Gran Canaria", "lon": -15.58, "lat": 27.96 }, "to": { "name": "La Gomera / Garajonay", "lon": -17.24, "lat": 28.11 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The 1488–1489 public range replaces a source-insecure parent-midpoint model proxy. La Gomera and Gran Canaria are both visible because the punitive force came from Gran Canaria.", "evidence": "Official Canary heritage chronology and historical scholarship for the 20 November 1488 killing, the 1488–1489 punitive response, and execution, enslavement, and sale" }, { "id": "atlas-canary-la-palma-conquest-1492-1493", "name": "Castilian Crown conquest and settlement of La Palma", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "Crown conquest, garrisoning, and colonial settlement of an Indigenous island territory", "affectedLabel": "Benahoaritas of La Palma", "actorLabel": "Crown of Castile / Alonso Fernández de Lugo / soldiers and settlers", "dates": "1492–1493 CE", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 70, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "markerScale": 0.7, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Northwest African coast", "lon": -13, "lat": 28.8 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1492, "end": 1493, "yearLabel": "1,492 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "A Crown-backed expedition landed at Tazacorte in 1492, established a military base, and completed the island conquest in 1493, opening La Palma to garrisoning and colonial settlement.", "contested": "The sources do not establish canton-by-canton demographic effects, complete casualty or captive totals, settler counts, parcel distributions, or an exact completion day. Crown sponsorship is not treated as a mainland migration itinerary.", "displaced": [ "Indigenous people and communities of La Palma, called ancient Palmeros in the local historical memorandum; the opened locators do not establish one outcome for every canton or individual" ], "settlers": [ "The Catholic Monarchs and Castilian Crown; Alonso Fernández de Lugo; his expeditionary troops and the garrison established at Tazacorte" ], "sources": [ "b18_67408323759606", "b18_2779455e33645f", "b18_092d7d57f73331", "b18_33ed00206e25ae" ], "targets": [ { "name": "La Palma / Tazacorte landing", "lon": -17.86, "lat": 28.68 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Tazacorte anchors the source-supported landing and inland campaign. The map does not infer an Indigenous removal destination.", "evidence": "The official Tazacorte memorandum, peer-reviewed archaeology, and conquest chronology for the 1492 landing, garrison, inland route, and 1493 outcome" }, { "id": "atlas-canary-tenerife-conquest-1494-1496", "name": "Castilian conquest of Tenerife and defeat of Guanche resistance", "region": "Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "Crown conquest, defeat of Indigenous polities, land offers, and European repopulation", "affectedLabel": "Guanche communities and menceyatos of Tenerife", "actorLabel": "Crown of Castile / Alonso Fernández de Lugo / soldiers and settlers", "dates": "1494–1496 CE", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 70, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "markerScale": 0.7, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Northwest African coast", "lon": -13, "lat": 28.8 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1494, "end": 1496, "yearLabel": "1,494 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "The 1494 invasion survived a major Guanche victory at Acentejo, returned, and defeated the remaining resistance by 1496. Crown incorporation, land offers, and European settlement followed, alongside documented Indigenous continuity and a mixed post-conquest society.", "contested": "The official sources do not quantify post-conquest dispossession, population loss, settler redistribution, menceyato-level outcomes, or individual trajectories. Crown identity is not converted into a settler-origin route, and the event is not described as total demographic erasure.", "displaced": [ "The Indigenous Guanche population of Tenerife, especially communities in the resisting menceyatos" ], "settlers": [ "The Catholic Monarchs and Crown of Castile; captain and governor Alonso Fernández de Lugo and Castilian forces; Guanche menceyatos and forces, including the resisting war factions" ], "sources": [ "b18_6ae66e6fe58aeb", "b18_c8eb37cbf116f4" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Tenerife / Acentejo", "lon": -16.44, "lat": 28.39 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Acentejo anchors the documented battle sequence. No outward route is drawn because post-conquest Guanche destinations are not one recoverable path.", "evidence": "Gobierno de Canarias and Museos de Tenerife for the 1494–1496 campaign, Crown incorporation, land offers, and European settlement" }, { "id": "prospective-israeli-settlements-golan-heights", "name": "Israeli settlements and land control in the occupied Syrian Golan", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state-supported settlement, occupation-era displacement, land control, and legal-administrative incorporation", "affectedLabel": "Displaced Syrians and residents of the five remaining Syrian villages", "actorLabel": "Government and authorities of Israel / Israeli settlers / military occupation authorities", "dates": "1967–present; frozen evidence through March 2025", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 12, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "markerScale": 1, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Five remaining Syrian villages — broad context", "lon": 35.76, "lat": 33.22 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1967, "end": 2025, "yearLabel": "1,967 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Since the 1967 occupation, Israeli authorities have established and expanded settlements in the Syrian Golan amid displacement, village destruction, restrictions on remaining Syrian communities, and settler control of occupied land. Israel applied its laws, jurisdiction, and administration in 1981; Security Council resolution 497 declared that act without international legal effect.", "contested": "The sources do not identify parcel-level ownership, exact displaced-person membership, every settlement's chronology, or developments after the stated 2025 evidence cutoff. The record is territorial and does not support one universal settler-origin or Syrian-displacement route.", "displaced": [ "Syrians displaced from the occupied Golan since 1967 and residents of the five remaining Syrian villages affected by settlement and land-control measures" ], "settlers": [ "Government and authorities of Israel, Israeli settlers, and military occupation authorities" ], "sources": [ "b18_6d4a45a24d623b", "b18_0eea1d17870ece" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Occupied Syrian Golan settlement system", "lon": 35.69, "lat": 32.99 } ], "origins": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The settlement system and the five remaining Syrian villages are shown separately. No generic settler-origin or Syrian-displacement route is inferred from the territorial record.", "evidence": "United Nations A/79/975–E/2025/82, paras. 94–97, and Security Council resolution 497 for settlement expansion, Syrian displacement and land control, and the legal-administrative act" }, { "id": "prospective-israeli-settlements-west-bank-east-jerusalem", "name": "Israeli settlement and Palestinian land control in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state-supported settlement, land seizure and allocation, planning control, infrastructure, and territorial fragmentation", "affectedLabel": "Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem", "actorLabel": "Government of Israel / civilian and military land authorities / Israeli settlers", "dates": "1967–present; detailed evidence through 2024", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 10, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "markerScale": 1, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Jordan Valley land-control corridor", "lon": 35.5, "lat": 31.9 } ], "periods": [ { "start": 1967, "end": 2024, "yearLabel": "1967 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Israel's settlement policy in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem began after the 1967 occupation and has continued through state-supported civilian transfer, settlement construction and maintenance, land confiscation or requisition, infrastructure, planning control, and territorial fragmentation. The detailed frozen source packet measures the 1 November 2023–31 October 2024 reporting window within that longer system.", "contested": "The detailed 1 November 2023–31 October 2024 reporting window does not establish household membership or parcel-by-parcel outcomes and must not be mistaken for the system's onset or endpoint. The ICJ record supports the 1967 start. The second_pass_v7_676 chronology addendum applies that onset and its era classification; 2024 remains an evidence cutoff, not a terminal year. The displayed traits retain their reviewed evidence ranges and qualifications.", "displaced": [ "Palestinian residents affected by settlement expansion, land seizure or allocation, discriminatory planning, demolition, restrictions, and territorial fragmentation in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem" ], "settlers": [ "Government of Israel, civilian and military land authorities, and Israeli settlers transferred to or maintained in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem" ], "sources": [ "b18_0adcf1edcd254c", "b18_377113a76c0615" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Northern and central occupied West Bank", "lon": 35.2, "lat": 32.1 }, { "name": "East Jerusalem settlement system", "lon": 35.25, "lat": 31.8 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Israel within the 1949 armistice lines — broad origin", "lon": 34.8, "lat": 32.1 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Israel within the 1949 armistice lines — broad origin", "lon": 34.8, "lat": 32.1 }, "to": { "name": "Northern and central occupied West Bank", "lon": 35.2, "lat": 32.1 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Israel within the 1949 armistice lines — broad origin", "lon": 34.8, "lat": 32.1 }, "to": { "name": "East Jerusalem settlement system", "lon": 35.25, "lat": 31.8 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The West Bank and East Jerusalem are one territorial child and remain separate from the Golan. The two broad routes represent state-supported civilian transfer, not exact personal itineraries.", "evidence": "The 2024 ICJ advisory-opinion summary for the settlement policy from 1967 and OHCHR A/HRC/58/73, paras. 2–5 and 8–15, for the 2023–2024 governance, land, planning, and fragmentation mechanisms" }, { "id": "prehistory-neolithic-southern-scandinavia-turnover", "name": "Neolithic farmer arrival and population turnover in Denmark", "region": "Europe", "fit": "expansion analogue", "mechanism": "low-state farmer migration, settlement, and major ancestry turnover", "affectedLabel": "Ertebølle and related local hunter-gatherer communities; household fates unknown", "actorLabel": "Funnel Beaker-associated farming communities with predominantly nonlocal farmer ancestry", "dates": "c. 4000-3300 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 14, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 24, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Southern Sweden — regional context, not a uniformly sampled footprint", "lon": 13.6, "lat": 56.25 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -4000, "end": -3300, "yearLabel": "4,000 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Beginning around 4000 BCE, farmer-associated communities arrived in Denmark and established durable settlements. Ancient genomes show an abrupt major ancestry transition alongside changes in diet, land use, and vegetation, while limited but nonzero local hunter-gatherer ancestry and individual exceptions document some continuity.", "contested": "The researchers state that they do not know how Ertebølle communities disappeared, adapted, or persisted. The 4000–3300 BCE range is a transition horizon, not a continuous coercive campaign; the line is a broad demographic direction rather than an observed itinerary or forced-removal route.", "displaced": [ "Ertebølle and related local hunter-gatherer communities affected by incoming settlement and major demographic change; no expelled cohort or destination is demonstrated" ], "settlers": [ "Funnel Beaker-associated farming communities with predominantly nonlocal farmer ancestry and some local hunter-gatherer contribution" ], "sources": [ "b19_0e34dc17dd4f5b", "b19_c6aa94e780a7d6" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Denmark — directly sampled transition", "lon": 10.1, "lat": 55.85 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Farmer-associated source south and east of Denmark — broad directional anchor", "lon": 11.2, "lat": 53.45 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Farmer-associated source south and east of Denmark — broad directional anchor", "lon": 11.2, "lat": 53.45 }, "to": { "name": "Denmark — directly sampled transition", "lon": 10.1, "lat": 55.85 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "Denmark is the directly sampled high-confidence footprint. Southern Sweden remains visible as regional context without implying equal sampling or uniform turnover there.", "evidence": "Allentoft et al. for the directly sampled Danish demographic transition and unknown disappearance mechanism; Mittnik et al. for the 4000–3300 BCE regional chronology" }, { "id": "prospective-initial-neolithic-farmer-expansion-from-southern-china-into-mainland-southeast-asia", "name": "Initial Neolithic farming migration and admixture in mainland Southeast Asia", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "expansion analogue", "mechanism": "low-state farmer migration, settlement, and heterogeneous admixture", "affectedLabel": "Locally established Hoabinhian-related populations who contributed ancestry to admixed Neolithic groups", "actorLabel": "Incoming farming populations with southern-China-related ancestry", "dates": "2550–2050 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 46, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 24, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -2550, "end": -2050, "yearLabel": "2,550 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Around the 2550–2050 BCE initial farming horizon, people carrying a major southern-China-related ancestry component moved into already inhabited mainland Southeast Asian landscapes. The early genomes support settlement and substantial, heterogeneous admixture with locally established Hoabinhian-related populations rather than simple or complete replacement.", "contested": "The date range is an approximate editorial horizon assembled from overlapping site and genome dates. The evidence does not establish coercive removal, violence, uniform ancestry or language, population totals, or one exact path; the lines show broad demographic connections to directly reviewed evidence in Vietnam, Laos, and Peninsular Malaysia.", "displaced": [ "Locally established Hoabinhian-related populations represented in the ancestry of admixed Neolithic groups; no source-supported victim or expelled cohort" ], "settlers": [ "Incoming farming populations carrying southern-East-Asian or southern-China-related ancestry, followed by locally heterogeneous admixture" ], "sources": [ "b19_b82b3978d8535b", "b19_5d5f4923d0f341", "b19_5258a144510b03" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Man Bac, northern Vietnam — early admixed Neolithic group", "lon": 106.05, "lat": 20.25 }, { "name": "Northern Laos — sampled Neolithic ancestry", "lon": 102.7, "lat": 20.35 }, { "name": "Peninsular Malaysia — sampled Neolithic ancestry", "lon": 102.25, "lat": 5.45 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Southern-China-related ancestry — broad source direction", "lon": 107.5, "lat": 23.1 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Southern-China-related ancestry — broad source direction", "lon": 107.5, "lat": 23.1 }, "to": { "name": "Man Bac, northern Vietnam — early admixed Neolithic group", "lon": 106.05, "lat": 20.25 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Southern-China-related ancestry — broad source direction", "lon": 107.5, "lat": 23.1 }, "to": { "name": "Northern Laos — sampled Neolithic ancestry", "lon": 102.7, "lat": 20.35 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Southern-China-related ancestry — broad source direction", "lon": 107.5, "lat": 23.1 }, "to": { "name": "Peninsular Malaysia — sampled Neolithic ancestry", "lon": 102.25, "lat": 5.45 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The map does not turn the frozen six-country label into one uniformly observed front. Thailand, Cambodia, and Myanmar are not shown as direct first-horizon anchors for this event.", "evidence": "Lipson et al. and McColl et al. for the initial migration, directly sampled early groups, and plausible rather than observed routes; the 2025 Communications Biology analysis for heterogeneous and sometimes more complex admixture" }, { "id": "prehistory-iberia-steppe-ancestry-turnover", "name": "Steppe-related migration and sex-biased ancestry turnover in Iberia", "region": "Europe", "fit": "expansion analogue", "mechanism": "Migration, coexistence, admixture, and sex-biased ancestry turnover.", "affectedLabel": "Resident Copper Age Iberian populations, much of whose autosomal ancestry persisted", "actorLabel": "People carrying steppe-related ancestry, with a disproportionate male contribution", "dates": "c. 2500-2000 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 35, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 24, "reachFitCap": 140, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Southeastern Iberia — regional follow-up context", "lon": -1.55, "lat": 37.55 } ], "periods": [ { "start": -2500, "end": -2000, "yearLabel": "2,500 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Between roughly 2500 and 2000 BCE, incoming people carrying steppe-related ancestry coexisted and admixed with local populations in Iberia. Post-2000 BCE groups derived about 40 percent of their ancestry from the incoming population, while Y-chromosome lineages common in sampled Copper Age groups nearly ceased to be observed. This supports strongly sex-biased ancestry turnover, not documented killing, expulsion, or residential displacement.", "contested": "The strongly sex-biased ancestry result does not establish that local men were killed, expelled, or residentially displaced. Substantial local autosomal ancestry persisted, the cited studies identify no bounded displaced cohort or destination, and the line remains a broad migration and ancestry direction rather than a forced route.", "displaced": [ "Resident Copper Age Iberian populations affected by migration and sex-biased admixture; no bounded displaced cohort or destination is demonstrated" ], "settlers": [ "Incoming people with steppe-related ancestry and a disproportionate male contribution; R1b-M269 is a lineage marker, not an actor" ], "sources": [ "b19_26921a6b827544", "b19_8db8569c93068e" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Iberian Peninsula — sampled 2500–2000 BCE transition", "lon": -3.6, "lat": 40.15 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Central-European steppe-related ancestry — broad directional anchor", "lon": 9, "lat": 49 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Central-European steppe-related ancestry — broad directional anchor", "lon": 9, "lat": 49 }, "to": { "name": "Iberian Peninsula — sampled 2500–2000 BCE transition", "lon": -3.6, "lat": 40.15 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The main node represents the peninsula-wide sampled transition. Southeastern Iberia is context from the independent regional study, not a separate event or a claim of synchronous replacement everywhere.", "evidence": "Olalde et al. for coexistence, approximately forty-percent incoming ancestry, near-total Y-lineage turnover, and the mechanism caveat; Villalba-Mouco et al. for the southern-Iberian regional check" }, { "id": "ancient-egypt-thutmose-iii-megiddo-captive-communities", "name": "Thutmose III’s Year 23 capture and removal from the Megiddo campaign", "region": "Western Asia & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "Royal military capture and removal into Egyptian custody; final institutional destinations and later labor assignments are unknown.", "affectedLabel": "Battle prisoners and separately listed adults, children, dependants, and famine-surrendering noncombatants from linked Levantine towns", "actorLabel": "Thutmose III and the Egyptian army", "dates": "Thutmose III, Year 23 (conventionally c. 1457 BCE)", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 22, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 24, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -1457, "end": -1457, "yearLabel": "YEAR 23", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Thutmose III's Year 23 annals distinguish 340 living battle prisoners from Megiddo from a separate multi-town list declaring 2,503 people. The campaign supports movement from the Levantine campaign zone into Egyptian custody, but not total depopulation, a precise destination estate, cohort-specific labor, mortality, return, or descendant continuity.", "contested": "The 340 living Megiddo battle prisoners and the separately attributed multi-town list are different cohorts and are not summed into one homogeneous population. The campaign supports removal into Egyptian custody, not total depopulation, a precise institutional destination, cohort-specific labor, mortality, return, or descendant continuity.", "displaced": [ "340 living battle prisoners reported from Megiddo", "A separate multi-town list declaring 2,503 people; visible categories are incomplete because the text contains a lacuna" ], "settlers": [ "Thutmose III and the Egyptian army as the capturing and transporting state force", "Egyptian royal custody as the supported destination system; no cohort-specific estate or labor assignment is known" ], "sources": [ "b20_b383ce4ebded2e", "b20_248ac5d5442899", "b20_1f09b817080a75" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Egyptian royal custody — exact final destination unknown", "lon": 31.1, "lat": 30.35 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Megiddo campaign zone", "lon": 35.182, "lat": 32.585, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Megiddo campaign zone", "lon": 35.182, "lat": 32.585, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Egyptian royal custody — exact final destination unknown", "lon": 31.1, "lat": 30.35 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "The dashed line begins at the Megiddo campaign zone and ends at a deliberately broad Egyptian-custody anchor. It does not claim one itinerary, an exact estate, or a known final home for every captive.", "evidence": "Thutmose III’s campaign annals for the two distinct captive lists and broad transfer into Egyptian custody; Langer for New Kingdom institutional possibilities, used only as system context" }, { "id": "prospective-amenhotep-ii-year-7-campaign-captive-removal", "name": "Amenhotep II’s Year 7 captive removal from Retjenu to Memphis", "region": "Western Asia & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "Military campaigning, capture of people together with property and animals, removal as booty/captives, and transport to Memphis/Egypt; Langer identifies such wartime deportation as forcible state transfer distinct from structural labor mobilization.", "affectedLabel": "Captive categories named on the Memphis stela, including maryannu, wives, Canaanites, rulers’ children, and women singers", "actorLabel": "Amenhotep II and the Egyptian army", "dates": "Amenhotep II, Year 7; absolute BCE date unresolved", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 24, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 24, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -1420, "end": -1420, "yearLabel": "YEAR 7", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "The Memphis stela directly links Amenhotep II's separately dated Year 7 Retjenu campaign to a captive return and list. The inscription states 2,214 captives while its listed categories sum to 2,255; both figures remain attributed claims rather than a reconciled total.", "contested": "The source does not establish every captive's exact source town, destination after the royal arrival at Memphis, later legal status, work assignment, mortality, return, or descendants. The numerical BCE coordinate remains an internal sorting proxy; the direct date is Amenhotep II's regnal Year 7. Shared ruler and policy do not merge this event with the separately dated Year 9 campaign.", "displaced": [ "Captive categories listed by the Year 7 Memphis stela", "The stela declares 2,214 people while its listed categories sum to 2,255; the discrepancy remains unresolved" ], "settlers": [ "Amenhotep II and the Egyptian army as the capturing and transporting state force", "Memphis as the last directly attested destination; later institutions and individual outcomes are unknown" ], "sources": [ "b20_c3e39c747f3b0a", "b20_cdd7dce8f9066a", "b20_570b8233c8ecbf", "b20_9fc05a8f879009" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Memphis — last directly attested destination", "lon": 31.25, "lat": 29.85 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Retjenu campaign zone — broad origin", "lon": 35.35, "lat": 33.2, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Retjenu campaign zone — broad origin", "lon": 35.35, "lat": 33.2, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Memphis — last directly attested destination", "lon": 31.25, "lat": 29.85 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "The dashed line is a broad Retjenu-to-Memphis movement, not a claim that every captive came from one point. Memphis is the last directly attested destination, not a proxy for a later temple, estate, household, or work site.", "evidence": "The TLA sentence sequence for the Year 7 date, departure, arrival at Memphis, and captive list; Taterka for the separate Year 7 and Year 9 campaigns and unresolved absolute chronology; Langer only for system context" }, { "id": "prospective-amenhotep-ii-year-9-campaign-captive-removal", "name": "Amenhotep II's Year 9 campaign and captive removal", "region": "Western Asia & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "royal military capture and removal into Egyptian custody", "affectedLabel": "Named Retjenu population categories taken in the Year 9 campaign", "actorLabel": "Amenhotep II and the Egyptian campaign army", "dates": "Amenhotep II, regnal Year 9; absolute BCE date unresolved", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 25, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 24, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -1420, "end": -1420, "yearLabel": "YEAR 9", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Amenhotep II's Memphis stela records a separately dated Year 9 campaign in Retjenu and large-scale captive removal into Egyptian custody. One large list states 89,600 people although its named human categories sum to 101,128; another list in the inscription is separate and cannot be added to either figure.", "contested": "The inscriptional counts are attributed royal claims and remain contradictory or non-additive; the atlas does not average them. Memphis is the king's recorded return point, not a demonstrated final destination for every captive. Later residence, labor assignment, mortality, return, and descendants are unknown, and the numerical BCE coordinate remains an internal sorting proxy rather than a resolved date.", "displaced": [ "People in the Year 9 captive lists, whose source communities and later destinations are incompletely resolved", "The stated 89,600 and the 101,128 category sum are preserved as conflicting claims" ], "settlers": [ "Amenhotep II and the Egyptian army as captors and transporters", "Egyptian royal custody as the supported receiving system; no cohort-specific institution is known" ], "sources": [ "b23_9c6f7948734cb9" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Egyptian custody — exact captive destinations unknown", "lon": 31.1, "lat": 30.35 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Retjenu campaign zone — broad source region", "lon": 35.35, "lat": 33.2, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, { "name": "Aphek-region campaign stop — broad anchor", "lon": 34.85, "lat": 32.1, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Retjenu campaign zone — broad source region", "lon": 35.35, "lat": 33.2, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Egyptian custody — exact captive destinations unknown", "lon": 31.1, "lat": 30.35 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Aphek-region campaign stop — broad anchor", "lon": 34.85, "lat": 32.1, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Egyptian custody — exact captive destinations unknown", "lon": 31.1, "lat": 30.35 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "Dashed routes show broad forced movement from the Retjenu and Aphek campaign region into Egyptian custody. Memphis is shown only as context for the king's documented return.", "evidence": "the Memphis stela's Year 9 sentence sequence, captive lists, and return account, calibrated by the completed v6 source review", "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Memphis — king's recorded return point, not every captive's final destination", "lon": 31.25, "lat": 29.85 } ] }, { "id": "ancient-hittite-mursili-arzawa-deportation", "name": "Muršili II's conquest of Arzawa and mass deportation to Hatti", "region": "Western Asia & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "conquest, mass state removal, and subordinate political incorporation", "affectedLabel": "Arzawan populations carried into Hatti and communities reorganized under subordinate polities", "actorLabel": "Muršili II, the Hittite army, and the Hittite royal administration", "dates": "Muršili II, regnal Years 3–4 (c. 1319–1318 BCE)", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 17, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 24, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -1319, "end": -1318, "yearLabel": "c. 1319 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Muršili II's annals describe the conquest of Arzawa, the removal of a royal-establishment aggregate of about 65,000–66,000 people into Hatti, and the political reorganization of the conquered region under Hittite subordinate polities.", "contested": "The aggregate is a royal claim, not a modern census. It is not added to interim captures or returned Hittite subjects. Large-scale removal and political incorporation are supported, but the resident denominator, exact destinations, cohort-specific labor, mortality, later return, and descendants remain unknown.", "displaced": [ "Arzawan populations described as NAM.RA transportees carried into Hatti", "Residents remaining in a conquered region reorganized under subordinate Hittite polities" ], "settlers": [ "Muršili II and Hittite military and administrative institutions", "No source-supported Hittite settler stream is inferred from political incorporation alone" ], "sources": [ "b23_b93b26b8be5a7c", "b23_768c5525420e8d", "b23_079e12b629f834" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Hatti — broad destination region; individual placements unknown", "lon": 34.2, "lat": 39.45 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Arzawa — broad western Anatolian source region", "lon": 28.5, "lat": 38.45, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Arzawa — broad western Anatolian source region", "lon": 28.5, "lat": 38.45, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Hatti — broad destination region; individual placements unknown", "lon": 34.2, "lat": 39.45 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "The forced route connects broad Arzawa and Hatti regions. It does not assign the transportees to one city, estate, or labor institution.", "evidence": "Hittite annalistic and scholarly syntheses for the royal aggregate, removal into Hatti, and political reorganization" }, { "id": "early-neo-assyrian-ashurnasirpal-nipur-pasate", "name": "Ashurnasirpal II at Atkun, Ushhu, and Pilazi", "region": "Western Asia & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "campaign killing, burning, prisoner-taking, submission, and continuing corvée", "affectedLabel": "People of Atkun, Ushhu, Pilazi, and neighboring Nipur-Pasate settlements", "actorLabel": "Ashurnasirpal II and the Assyrian campaign army", "dates": "882/883 BCE; chronology disputed", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 13, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 24, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -882.5, "end": -882.5, "yearLabel": "882/883 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "In a campaign dated 882 BCE by ORACC and 883 BCE by Sano, Ashurnasirpal II's account attributes killings, burning, and unnumbered prisoner-taking to Atkun, Ushhu, Pilazi, and neighboring settlements, followed by local submission and continuing corvée obligations.", "contested": "The prisoners' number and destination are unknown, as is the share of residents affected. Corvée-bearing submitters are not treated as the same cohort as the people carried away. The line shows the Assyrian army's operational approach, not a captive route to Assyria.", "displaced": [ "Unnumbered prisoners carried from the affected settlement cluster to an unknown destination", "Local residents who submitted and remained under continuing obligations" ], "settlers": [ "Ashurnasirpal II and the Assyrian campaign army", "No Assyrian replacement-settler population is established" ], "sources": [ "b23_e899a18734c4a6", "b23_28491528a22d8c" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Atkun, Ushhu, and Pilazi — approximate Nipur-Pasate campaign zone", "lon": 42.2, "lat": 37.65 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Kalhu — Assyrian royal and campaign center", "lon": 43.33, "lat": 36.1 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Kalhu — Assyrian royal and campaign center", "lon": 43.33, "lat": 36.1 }, "to": { "name": "Atkun, Ushhu, and Pilazi — approximate Nipur-Pasate campaign zone", "lon": 42.2, "lat": 37.65 }, "kind": "operational" } ], "placeGloss": "The campaign-zone point is approximate. The solid line is an operational approach from Kalhu; no destination is invented for the prisoners.", "evidence": "ORACC Q004455 i 69b–73a and Sano's campaign chronology" }, { "id": "early-neo-assyrian-ashurnasirpal-tumme-habhu", "name": "Ashurnasirpal II in Nimme/Tummu and Habhu", "region": "Western Asia & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "campaign killing, prisoner-taking, destruction, submission, tribute, tax, and corvée", "affectedLabel": "Communities in the Nimme/Tummu, Habruri, and Habhu campaign phases", "actorLabel": "Ashurnasirpal II and the Assyrian campaign army", "dates": "882/883 BCE; chronology disputed", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 13, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 24, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -882.5, "end": -882.5, "yearLabel": "882/883 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "In a campaign dated 882 BCE by ORACC and 883 BCE by Sano, the Nimme/Tummu, Habruri, and Habhu phases combine attributed military killing, unnumbered prisoner-taking, destruction, local submission, and imposed tribute, tax, and corvée.", "contested": "Nimme and Tummu are source-name variants, not two events. The figures 200 and 260 are military claims rather than a civilian total. Unnumbered prisoners, local submitters, corvée-bearing residents, and the Bubu elite coda remain distinct, and captive destinations are unknown.", "displaced": [ "Unnumbered prisoners carried from the campaign region to unknown destinations", "Local populations remaining under tribute, tax, and corvée obligations" ], "settlers": [ "Ashurnasirpal II and the Assyrian campaign army", "No Assyrian replacement-settler population is established" ], "sources": [ "b23_e899a18734c4a6", "b23_28491528a22d8c" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Nimme/Tummu and Habruri — approximate campaign cluster", "lon": 42.5, "lat": 37.95 }, { "name": "Habhu — approximate campaign region", "lon": 42.95, "lat": 37.55 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Kalhu — Assyrian royal and campaign center", "lon": 43.33, "lat": 36.1 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Kalhu — Assyrian royal and campaign center", "lon": 43.33, "lat": 36.1 }, "to": { "name": "Nimme/Tummu and Habruri — approximate campaign cluster", "lon": 42.5, "lat": 37.95 }, "kind": "operational" }, { "from": { "name": "Nimme/Tummu and Habruri — approximate campaign cluster", "lon": 42.5, "lat": 37.95 }, "to": { "name": "Habhu — approximate campaign region", "lon": 42.95, "lat": 37.55 }, "kind": "operational" } ], "placeGloss": "The two solid segments show the campaign's internal operational sequence. They are not prisoner routes and do not claim exact locations for every named settlement.", "evidence": "ORACC Q004455 i 43b–69a and Sano's campaign chronology" }, { "id": "early-neo-assyrian-ashurnasirpal-upper-tigris-nirbu-882", "name": "Ashurnasirpal II's Upper Tigris and Nirbu campaign", "region": "Western Asia & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "campaign killing and prisoner-taking, local flight and return, returnee settlement, and imposed obligations", "affectedLabel": "Distinct Upper Tigris and Nirbu captive, returnee, hostage, resident, and fugitive cohorts", "actorLabel": "Ashurnasirpal II, the Assyrian army, and local communities with different trajectories", "dates": "882 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 14, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 24, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -882, "end": -882, "yearLabel": "882 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "The 882 BCE passage records several different trajectories: killed combatants and captives, carried-off prisoners of unknown destination, Assyrian famine returnees placed at Tushha, local Nirbu people returned to abandoned cities and houses under heavier obligations, hostages, and later fugitives to Ispilipria.", "contested": "The attributed military and captive figures describe different cohorts and are not combined into a resident census. The map does not give the carried prisoners a destination. The Subria-to-Tushha and Nirbu-to-Ispilipria lines are schematic movements for specifically named trajectories, not one population stream.", "displaced": [ "Prisoners carried away to unknown destinations and people killed in the campaign", "Assyrian famine returnees, local Nirbu returnees, hostages, and later fugitives, each with a different outcome" ], "settlers": [ "Ashurnasirpal II and the Assyrian military-administrative apparatus", "Assyrian famine returnees settled at Tushha; not a proxy for every cohort" ], "sources": [ "b23_e899a18734c4a6", "b23_28491528a22d8c" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Tushha — Assyrian returnee settlement and administrative center", "lon": 40.98, "lat": 37.93 }, { "name": "Nirbu — broad source-text region", "lon": 41.9, "lat": 37.75 }, { "name": "Ispilipria — schematic later flight destination", "lon": 41.55, "lat": 38.1 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Kalhu — Assyrian royal and campaign center", "lon": 43.33, "lat": 36.1 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Kalhu — Assyrian royal and campaign center", "lon": 43.33, "lat": 36.1 }, "to": { "name": "Tushha — Assyrian returnee settlement and administrative center", "lon": 40.98, "lat": 37.93 }, "kind": "operational" }, { "from": { "name": "Subria — broad source region for Assyrian famine returnees", "lon": 42.15, "lat": 38.35 }, "to": { "name": "Tushha — Assyrian returnee settlement and administrative center", "lon": 40.98, "lat": 37.93 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Nirbu — broad source-text region", "lon": 41.9, "lat": 37.75 }, "to": { "name": "Ispilipria — schematic later flight destination", "lon": 41.55, "lat": 38.1 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The solid Kalhu–Tushha line is operational. The other two lines are labeled schematic movements supported for specific returnee and fugitive cohorts; no captive destination is drawn.", "evidence": "ORACC Q004455 i 101b–ii 19a and Sano's regional and chronological discussion", "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Subria — broad source region for Assyrian famine returnees", "lon": 42.15, "lat": 38.35 } ] }, { "id": "early-neo-assyrian-ashurnasirpal-zamua-881", "name": "Ashurnasirpal II's first Zamua campaign", "region": "Western Asia & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "campaign killing, unnumbered prisoner-taking, destruction, and vassal incorporation", "affectedLabel": "Named Zamua city groups, prisoners of unknown destination, and submitting local polities", "actorLabel": "Ashurnasirpal II, the Assyrian army, and subordinated local kings", "dates": "881 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 13, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 24, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -881, "end": -881, "yearLabel": "881 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "The 881 BCE account attributes military killing, unnumbered prisoner-taking, and destruction to named Zamua city groups, then records local kings' submission, an imposed regional authority, payment, and corvée.", "contested": "Every human number in the passage is a military claim, while 150 is a non-additive city count. The text does not establish a civilian denominator, durable depopulation, an Assyrian settler population, or a captive destination. The line shows the campaign's operational approach rather than carrying prisoners to Kalhu.", "displaced": [ "Unnumbered prisoners taken from named Zamua city groups to unknown destinations", "Residents of polities that submitted and continued under payment and corvée obligations" ], "settlers": [ "Ashurnasirpal II and the Assyrian campaign army", "An imposed regional authority and subordinated local kings; no replacement settlement is inferred" ], "sources": [ "b23_e899a18734c4a6", "b23_28491528a22d8c" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Zamua — broad 881 BCE campaign region", "lon": 45.3, "lat": 35.65 } ], "origins": [ { "name": "Kalhu — Assyrian royal and campaign center", "lon": 43.33, "lat": 36.1 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Kalhu — Assyrian royal and campaign center", "lon": 43.33, "lat": 36.1 }, "to": { "name": "Zamua — broad 881 BCE campaign region", "lon": 45.3, "lat": 35.65 }, "kind": "operational" } ], "placeGloss": "Zamua is a broad regional anchor. The solid line is an Assyrian operational route, not a captive destination claim.", "evidence": "ORACC Q004455 ii 23b–47 and Sano's campaign chronology" }, { "id": "prospective-paeonian-deportation-to-phrygia-approximately-512-bce", "name": "Megabazus's deportation of Paeonian communities to Phrygia", "region": "Southern Europe & Western Asia", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "royal deportation order, military seizure, family removal, and imposed resettlement", "affectedLabel": "Named Paeonian communities removed with women and children", "actorLabel": "Darius I, Megabazus, and Persian forces", "dates": "Approximately 512 BCE; 513-510 BCE is the contextual dating window", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 52, "zoomFloor": 24, "viewPadding": 26, "reachFitCap": 150, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -513, "end": -510, "yearLabel": "c. 512 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Herodotus reports that Darius I ordered Megabazus to remove Paeonian communities with their women and children. Persian forces took undefended towns by an inland approach and carried the Siriopaeones, Paeoplae, and other communities as far as Lake Prasias across the Hellespont into Asia. Herodotus later places the deportees together in a district and village in Phrygia.", "contested": "Herodotus is the controlling ancient narrative; Iranica supplies chronology and source criticism rather than independent primary corroboration. Interior Paeonians, groups around Mount Pangaeum, and lake dwellers were not subdued, so this was not the removal of all Paeonians. The exact year, cohort total, removal share, Phrygian village, landholding, tax or labor status, mortality, and long-run outcome are unknown. Some families later fled home during the Ionian Revolt while others remained; that westward return is a separate event.", "displaced": [ "Siriopaeones, Paeoplae, and other named communities as far as Lake Prasias", "Women and children carried with the removed communities", "Interior, Mount Pangaeum, and lake-dwelling Paeonians expressly excluded from the captured cohort" ], "settlers": [ "Darius I as the ordering authority", "Megabazus and Persian forces as the executing agents", "No land grant, labor assignment, or exact Phrygian settlement is inferred" ], "sources": [ "b26_dbc0f0354a54c6", "b26_34e07e8782a90c", "b26_3a2cc0cbdbece7", "b26_43d0777e2f2255", "b26_7893ff73f42ace" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Lower Strymon and named Paeonian communities — broad source field", "lon": 23.3, "lat": 41.2, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Phrygia — broad destination field; exact district and village unknown", "lon": 30.5, "lat": 39 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Hellespont crossing — attested route passage", "lon": 26.4, "lat": 40.2 }, { "name": "Sardis — attested custody point, not the final settlement", "lon": 28.03, "lat": 38.49 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Lower Strymon and named Paeonian communities — broad source field", "lon": 23.3, "lat": 41.2, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Hellespont crossing — attested route passage", "lon": 26.4, "lat": 40.2 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Hellespont crossing — attested route passage", "lon": 26.4, "lat": 40.2 }, "to": { "name": "Sardis — attested custody point, not the final settlement", "lon": 28.03, "lat": 38.49 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Sardis — attested custody point, not the final settlement", "lon": 28.03, "lat": 38.49 }, "to": { "name": "Phrygia — broad destination field; exact district and village unknown", "lon": 30.5, "lat": 39 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "The route is schematic but source-bounded: a broad lower-Strymon/Paeonian source field, the attested Hellespont crossing and Sardis custody point, and a broad Phrygian destination. It does not identify Lake Prasias precisely or invent the final village.", "evidence": "Herodotus 5.14-17, 5.23, and 5.98, with modern chronology and source criticism as cited" }, { "id": "ancient-achaemenid-barcaeans-bactria", "name": "Persian capture of Barca and deportation of Barcaeans to Bactria", "region": "North Africa & Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "punitive capture, differentiated killing and enslavement, state deportation, and assigned residence", "affectedLabel": "Barcaeans killed, enslaved, deported, or left in the Battid remnant", "actorLabel": "Pheretime, Aryandes, Persian commanders and forces, and Darius I", "dates": "Approximately 515-510 BCE (late 510s BCE)", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 150, "zoomFloor": 28, "viewPadding": 28, "reachFitCap": 250, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 4.5, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -515, "end": -510, "yearLabel": "late 510s BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -515, "end": -510, "dateLabel": "late 510s BCE", "label": "Siege, capture, and differentiated punishment at Barca" }, { "start": -515, "end": -510, "dateLabel": "after the capture", "label": "Transport through Egypt and assignment to an unidentified Bactrian town" } ] } ], "story": "Herodotus reports that Persian forces captured Barca after a long siege. Pheretime killed selected men and their wives; the captured remainder was enslaved and taken through Egypt, while a noncomplicit Battid household remained and governed Barca. Darius later assigned the deportees a town in Bactria, which they named Barca.", "contested": "Herodotus is the sole detailed narrative. His statement that the Bactrian town remained inhabited in his lifetime does not prove a continuously Barcaean-descended community. The exact date, source-city population, removal share, route east of Egypt, Bactrian town, prior destination residents, land tenure, household composition, labor obligations, return history, and descendants are unknown.", "displaced": [ "Selected Barcaean men and their wives killed in Pheretime's punishment", "The unquantified captured remainder enslaved and deported east", "A noncomplicit Battid household explicitly left at Barca" ], "settlers": [ "Pheretime as petitioner and principal punitive actor", "Aryandes, Persian commanders, and forces as the siege and removal apparatus", "Darius I as the authority assigning residence in Bactria" ], "sources": [ "b27_fe734abf043666", "b27_50c834d8f20a47", "b27_23698df9f469dc" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Barca / al-Marj area — probable source-city field", "lon": 20.83, "lat": 32.49, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Bactria — broad destination; the assigned town is unidentified", "lon": 66.8, "lat": 36.5 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Egypt — attested custody and transit context", "lon": 30.8, "lat": 30.2 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Barca / al-Marj area — probable source-city field", "lon": 20.83, "lat": 32.49, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Egypt — attested custody and transit context", "lon": 30.8, "lat": 30.2 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Egypt — attested custody and transit context", "lon": 30.8, "lat": 30.2 }, "to": { "name": "Bactria — broad destination; the assigned town is unidentified", "lon": 66.8, "lat": 36.5 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "Barca is shown as a probable low-confidence source field. Egypt is attested transit and custody context. The eastward segment is schematic because the itinerary is unknown, and Bactria is a regional destination field rather than an invented archaeological town.", "evidence": "Herodotus 4.200-204, with modern chronology and source criticism as cited" }, { "id": "gr-roman-pometia-destruction-503-495", "name": "Pometia surrender, captive sale, destruction, and reported land sale", "region": "Southern Europe", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "surrender, execution of civic leaders, captive sale, city destruction, and reported land alienation", "affectedLabel": "Pometian leaders and townspeople in Livy's transmitted account", "actorLabel": "Roman consuls, army, and public sale authorities", "dates": "c. 502 or 495 BCE; competing annalistic notices, with defection reported in 503", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 14, "zoomFloor": 14, "viewPadding": 24, "periods": [ { "start": -502, "end": -502, "yearLabel": "c. 502 or 495 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy's transmitted account reports Pometia's surrender, execution of leading men, sale of the remaining townspeople, razing of the city, and sale of its land. A later annalistic capture and pillage notice may duplicate or telescope the same disappearance.", "contested": "The 503 BCE defection is context, not the start of an eight-year destruction. The c. 502 and 495 notices are competing or telescoped traditions, and Pometia's exact site is disputed. The account is not a recovered census; captive destinations, casualty shares, buyers, parcels, successor land use, return history, and complete clearance are unknown. Livy 2.25's separate land assignment concerns Ecetra, not Pometia.", "displaced": [ "Leading Pometian men reported executed", "Remaining townspeople reported sold into captivity", "No exact population total or captive destination is known" ], "settlers": [ "Roman military and public authorities", "No successor-settler stream is demonstrated in the surviving account" ], "sources": [ "b27_0ea869002d5773", "b27_504deed19255f6" ], "targets": [ { "name": "Pometia — uncertain Pontine Plain source field", "lon": 12.85, "lat": 41.55 } ], "origins": [], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — state organization and colonist recruitment", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9, "routeUse": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The marker is a visibly uncertain Pontine Plain source field, not modern Pomezia or a claimed exact ancient site. No captive route is drawn because every destination is unknown; no parcel map or successor settlement is inferred.", "evidence": "Livy 2.16-17, 2.22, and 2.25, with Chiaba's source-critical chronology and geography" }, { "id": "gr-roman-velitrae-conquest-colony-494-492", "name": "Roman conquest, settlement, and compelled reinforcement of Velitrae", "region": "Southern Europe", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "conquest, territory taking, colonist dispatch, compulsory reinforcement, and incorporation", "affectedLabel": "The continuing local and Volscian community at Velitrae", "actorLabel": "Roman senate, commanders, commissioners, and incoming Roman colonists", "dates": "494 and 492 BCE; initial settlement and reinforcement, possibly duplicated or telescoped", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 12, "zoomFloor": 12, "viewPadding": 24, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -494, "end": -492, "yearLabel": "494 and 492 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -494, "end": -494, "dateLabel": "494 BCE", "label": "Conquest or recovery, territory taking, and initial colonist dispatch" }, { "start": -492, "end": -492, "dateLabel": "492 BCE", "label": "Reinforcement through compulsory Roman recruitment after volunteering failed" } ] } ], "story": "Livy reports Roman entry into Velitrae, territory taking, and the dispatch of colonists. Two years later the colony was reinforced. Dionysius describes a senatorial settlement decision and compulsory recruitment of Roman citizens after voluntary participation failed.", "contested": "The 494 and 492 notices may duplicate or telescope one another, so they form one source-critical stop rather than two cases. Dionysius's plague claim is context, not Roman lethal coercion or a modern population estimate. The compelled movers were incoming Romans, not demonstrated expelled residents. Colonist totals, shares, households, parcels, prior-resident removal, and settled constitutional status are unknown; later local and Volscian continuity argues against complete replacement.", "displaced": [ "Local and Volscian residents affected by conquest and territory taking", "No bounded prior-resident deportation cohort is demonstrated" ], "settlers": [ "Roman colonists sent from Rome in the initial settlement", "Roman citizens compelled into the later reinforcement", "A continuing mixed local, Volscian, and Roman community" ], "sources": [ "b27_0ea869002d5773", "b27_b6899f93424ce9", "b27_504deed19255f6", "b27_b3ef12c26923e2" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome — state organization and colonist recruitment", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9, "routeUse": "movement" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Velitrae / modern Velletri — conquest and settlement target", "lon": 12.78, "lat": 41.69 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome — state organization and colonist recruitment", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9, "routeUse": "movement" }, "to": { "name": "Velitrae / modern Velletri — conquest and settlement target", "lon": 12.78, "lat": 41.69 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The short line shows incoming colonists from Rome to Velitrae, not an expelled-resident route or an exact ancient road. The two dated actions remain one consolidated case and playback stop.", "evidence": "Livy 2.30-31 and 2.34, Dionysius 7.12-13, and Chiaba's source-critical review" }, { "id": "prospective-miletus-destruction-ampe-deportation-and-land-redistribution-494-bce", "name": "Achaemenid capture of Miletus, captive settlement at Ampe, and land disposition", "region": "Western Asia", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "punitive conquest, differentiated killing and enslavement, forced imperial settlement, and source-land disposition", "affectedLabel": "Captured Milesians killed, enslaved, or settled at Ampe, alongside source-side survivors and escapees", "actorLabel": "Persian forces and Darius I; Pēdaseis/Pidasians as highland beneficiaries without a demonstrated migration", "dates": "494 BCE", "extent": "interregional", "viewWidth": 145, "zoomFloor": 28, "viewPadding": 28, "reachFitCap": 250, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 4.5, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -494, "end": -494, "yearLabel": "494 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -494, "end": -494, "dateLabel": "494 BCE", "label": "Capture, differentiated killing and enslavement at Miletus" }, { "start": -494, "end": -494, "dateLabel": "after the capture", "label": "Captive cohort taken through Susa and settled at Ampe" }, { "start": -494, "end": -494, "dateLabel": "after the capture", "label": "Persian possession of city and plain; highland grant to Pēdaseis/Pidasians" } ] } ], "story": "Herodotus reports that after the Persian capture of Miletus in 494 BCE, most captured men were killed, women and children were enslaved, and a captive Milesian cohort was taken to Susa and settled by Darius at Ampe. He also reports Persian possession of the city-near land and plain and a grant of the hills to Pēdaseis/Pidasians.", "contested": "The account is not a census. Escaped, rural, absent, and other surviving Milesians prevent a total-clearance claim. The number and household composition of the Ampe cohort, exact destination and itinerary, destination tenure and labor, duration, and return are unknown. The highland grant does not establish a Carian household migration. The separate c. 479 refoundation is not a return phase and supplies no evidence that the Ampe cohort returned.", "displaced": [ "Most captured Milesian men reported killed", "Women and children reported enslaved, without a complete destination account", "An unquantified captive Milesian cohort settled at Ampe", "Source-side survivors, escapees, absentees, and rural residents who prevent a total-clearance claim" ], "settlers": [ "Persian forces as the conquering apparatus", "Darius I as the authority assigning the captive cohort to Ampe", "Pēdaseis/Pidasians as named highland beneficiaries, without a demonstrated migration stream" ], "sources": [ "b28_919b54d5ffff3d", "b28_ecdab2642d7148", "b28_74aa08736bbe3d", "b28_92f3f5a8633edc" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Miletus / Balat — secure source-city area", "lon": 27.28, "lat": 37.53, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Ampe — broad lower-Tigris destination field; exact site unknown", "lon": 47.5, "lat": 30.5 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Susa — named royal custody and decision point", "lon": 48.25, "lat": 32.19 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Miletus / Balat — secure source-city area", "lon": 27.28, "lat": 37.53, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Susa — named royal custody and decision point", "lon": 48.25, "lat": 32.19 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Susa — named royal custody and decision point", "lon": 48.25, "lat": 32.19 }, "to": { "name": "Ampe — broad lower-Tigris destination field; exact site unknown", "lon": 47.5, "lat": 30.5 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "Miletus is a secure source anchor. Susa is a named custody and royal-decision point. Ampe is a broad lower-Tigris destination field rather than an exact archaeological site. The segmented route is schematic; land labels do not imply parcels or a Carian migration arrow.", "evidence": "Herodotus 6.18-22, with Gorman, Bresson, and the Fachard-Harris survival and recovery synthesis as cited" }, { "id": "ancient-achaemenid-eretria-ardericca", "name": "Achaemenid capture of Eretria and deportation of a captive cohort to Ardericca", "region": "Southern Europe / Western Asia", "fit": "contextual", "mechanism": "punitive conquest, enslavement, state transfer, and royal assigned settlement", "affectedLabel": "An unquantified captive Eretrian cohort, alongside source-side survivors and the recovering city", "actorLabel": "Persian forces under Datis and Artaphrenes and the royal authority of Darius I", "dates": "490 BCE", "extent": "interregional", "viewWidth": 145, "zoomFloor": 28, "viewPadding": 28, "reachFitCap": 250, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "originFitRatio": 4.5, "originDisplay": "edge", "periods": [ { "start": -490, "end": -490, "yearLabel": "490 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -490, "end": -490, "dateLabel": "490 BCE", "label": "Siege, betrayal, capture, damage, and enslavement at Eretria" }, { "start": -490, "end": -490, "dateLabel": "after the capture", "label": "Custody during the campaign, inland transfer through Susa, and settlement at Ardericca" } ] } ], "story": "Herodotus reports that Persian forces captured and sacked Eretria in 490 BCE, enslaved a captured Eretrian cohort, held it during the campaign, brought it inland to Susa, and that Darius assigned it a place at Ardericca in Cissia. He says the community still lived there and retained its language in his time.", "contested": "The deported cohort was not the whole wider Eretrian population. Archaeology and Eretria's rapid civic and military recovery require source-side continuity, but do not identify the mixture of survivors, absentees, nearby returnees, or later arrivals. The cohort size and composition, exact Aeglea and Ardericca sites, itinerary, attrition, tenure, labor, local Cissian outcome, legal return status, and later descendants are unknown. Source-city recovery is not evidence of return from Ardericca.", "displaced": [ "An unquantified Eretrian cohort captured and enslaved in the city", "The cohort transferred under Persian custody and settled at Ardericca", "Source-side survivors and the recovering Eretrian community, which prevent a whole-polis removal claim" ], "settlers": [ "Persian forces under Datis and Artaphrenes as the capture and custody apparatus", "Darius I as the authority assigning the cohort a place at Ardericca", "No displacement of Cissians or destination labor institution is demonstrated" ], "sources": [ "b28_4cf40a49de6a11", "b28_8caa731b6183bd", "b28_92f3f5a8633edc", "b28_f45000fcb04533" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Eretria — secure source-city area", "lon": 23.79, "lat": 38.4, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Ardericca in Cissia — broad destination field near Susa; exact site unknown", "lon": 48, "lat": 32.1 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Southern Euboea / Styra area — broad custody context; Aeglea uncertain", "lon": 24.17, "lat": 38.16 }, { "name": "Susa — named royal custody and decision point", "lon": 48.25, "lat": 32.19 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Eretria — secure source-city area", "lon": 23.79, "lat": 38.4, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Southern Euboea / Styra area — broad custody context; Aeglea uncertain", "lon": 24.17, "lat": 38.16 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Southern Euboea / Styra area — broad custody context; Aeglea uncertain", "lon": 24.17, "lat": 38.16 }, "to": { "name": "Susa — named royal custody and decision point", "lon": 48.25, "lat": 32.19 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Susa — named royal custody and decision point", "lon": 48.25, "lat": 32.19 }, "to": { "name": "Ardericca in Cissia — broad destination field near Susa; exact site unknown", "lon": 48, "lat": 32.1 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "Eretria is a secure source anchor and remains populated. The southern-Euboean custody context and Ardericca/Cissia destination are broad fields, not exact site claims. The segmented line follows named stages schematically rather than reconstructing a maritime or overland itinerary.", "evidence": "Herodotus 6.100-119, with Eretria XXVI, Fachard and Harris, and Encyclopaedia Iranica as cited" }, { "id": "gr-roman-antium-conquest-integrated-colony-468-467", "name": "Antium conquest, partial land division, and mixed colony", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "conquest-linked partial land division and mixed colonial reorganization with explicit local continuity", "affectedLabel": "Volscian and Antiate prior possessors affected by division of part of the captured land", "actorLabel": "Roman Republic and commissioners; Roman, Latin, Hernician, and Antiate participants in a mixed settlement", "dates": "468-467 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -468, "end": -467, "yearLabel": "468 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -468, "end": -468, "dateLabel": "468 BCE", "label": "Roman capture or surrender of Antium" }, { "start": -467, "end": -467, "dateLabel": "467 BCE", "label": "Part of the captured land divided for a mixed colony while Antiates retain land and remain" } ] } ], "story": "After Rome took Antium, commissioners divided part of the captured Volscian or Antiate land for a colony. Few Romans enrolled, Latin and Hernician participants were admitted, and Antiates remained a major part of the successor community while retaining some land.", "contested": "The retrospective sources disagree in detail and do not preserve the colony's exact constitutional form, total population, origin shares, household composition, parcel boundaries, or displaced share. Dionysius reports that some landless Antiates left and that continuing Antiates cultivated transferred land under crop shares, but this does not establish wholesale removal or coerced labor brought from elsewhere. The early settlement did not create a durable Roman-aligned outcome, and the separate 338 BCE settlement is not merged here.", "displaced": [ "Prior Volscian or Antiate possessors affected by partial captured-land division", "Some landless Antiates reported to have left, without a count or destination", "Continuing Antiates who retained land or participated in the mixed successor community" ], "settlers": [ "Roman Republic and named colonial commissioners", "A small unquantified Roman component", "Latin and Hernician participants of unrecorded origins", "Antiate participants who remained locally" ], "sources": [ "b29_1fdf387b78b2f3", "b29_7b367a17eee51d", "b29_504deed19255f6" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome — directing center and one incomplete source cue", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Antium / Anzio-Nettuno and adjacent partial allotment field", "lon": 12.63, "lat": 41.45 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome — directing center and one incomplete source cue", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 }, "to": { "name": "Antium / Anzio-Nettuno and adjacent partial allotment field", "lon": 12.63, "lat": 41.45 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The line is a schematic Rome-to-Antium administrative and partial incoming connection, not the origin route of every participant. The destination marker covers an existing city and a broad adjacent allotment field; it is not a parcel map. Antiates remained in place, and no resident-removal route is drawn.", "evidence": "Livy 3.1 and Dionysius 9.59-60, controlled by Chiaba's source-critical review of the early Antium colony" }, { "id": "gr-roman-ardea-taking-restitution-reorganization-446-442", "name": "Ager Coriolanus taking and locally weighted restitution", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "legal appropriation through arbitration followed by protest and locally weighted restitution or reorganization", "affectedLabel": "Ardeate and Arician claimants to the disputed Ager Coriolanus", "actorLabel": "Roman tribes and commonwealth, Senate, colonial commissioners, and locally prioritized Rutulian or Ardeate participants", "dates": "446-442 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 48, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.16, "reachFitCap": 84, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -446, "end": -442, "yearLabel": "446 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -446, "end": -446, "dateLabel": "446 BCE", "label": "Rome uses arbitration to claim the disputed tract as Roman public land" }, { "start": -442, "end": -442, "dateLabel": "442 BCE", "label": "The same tract is assigned first and chiefly to local Rutulian or Ardeate participants" } ] } ], "story": "Ardea and Aricia submitted a land dispute to Roman arbitration in 446 BCE, but the Roman assembly claimed the tract for the Roman commonwealth. After Ardeate protest, the 442 BCE settlement assigned the same land first and chiefly to Rutulian or Ardeate participants, substantially reversing the taking.", "contested": "This is a legal land taking and reversal, not a demonstrated population removal. The tract's exact bounds, parcel shares, legal form, number of incoming Romans, and individual movement are unknown. Ardea's civil conflict and population loss are context for the later settlement, not demonstrated consequences of the 446 judgment. The two dates remain one event because they concern the same land and the later assignment reverses the earlier appropriation.", "displaced": [ "Ardeate and Arician claimants whose rights were displaced by the 446 Roman award", "No resident population is demonstrated to have been physically removed" ], "settlers": [ "Roman commonwealth as the temporary claimant", "Locally prioritized Rutulian or Ardeate participants in the 442 assignment", "Any incoming Roman component remains unquantified" ], "sources": [ "b29_1fdf387b78b2f3", "b29_8976f2f5c3083d", "b29_255296d6954c94", "b29_504deed19255f6" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Ager Coriolanus — schematic disputed-land field; exact bounds unknown", "lon": 12.61, "lat": 41.65 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — directing center and one incomplete source cue", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 }, { "name": "Ardea — Rutulian and Ardeate context", "lon": 12.55, "lat": 41.61 }, { "name": "Aricia / Ariccia — claimant-city context", "lon": 12.67, "lat": 41.72 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Rome is shown only as the decision center; Ardea and Aricia are claimant contexts. The target is a schematic field for the disputed land, not an ancient boundary. No route is drawn because neither resident removal nor a physical Roman settler stream is demonstrated. The one stop preserves both the 446 taking and its 442 locally weighted reversal.", "evidence": "Livy 3.71-72, 4.7, and 4.11; Dionysius 11.52; and Chiaba's source-critical treatment of the Ardea settlement" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-athenian-aegina-expulsion-settlement-431-406-bce", "name": "Athenian expulsion and successor settlement on Aegina", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "family-inclusive expulsion, state-directed successor settlement, and temporary Athenian possession", "affectedLabel": "Aeginetan resident community, including families", "actorLabel": "Athens and incoming Athenian inhabitants; displaced Aeginetans with one named refugee branch", "dates": "431-406 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 46, "zoomFloor": 24, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 82, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -431, "end": -406, "yearLabel": "431 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Thucydides reports that in 431 BCE Athens expelled the Aeginetans, including their families, and soon sent Athenian inhabitants to settle Aegina. Sparta gave one refugee branch land in the broad Thyreatis region; other Aeginetans dispersed elsewhere across Greece.", "contested": "The 406 endpoint is analytical: it is the last full year before the separate 405 BCE restoration, not a new action in 406. Refugee totals, destinations beyond the named Thyreatis branch, Athenian settler totals and household composition, parcel arrangements, and the returning share are unknown. The 424 BCE destruction of Thyrea is a separate event, and the settlement is not labeled a certain cleruchy.", "displaced": [ "Aeginetan residents expelled with their families", "One unquantified branch given land in broad Thyreatis", "Other displaced Aeginetans dispersed to unspecified places across Greece" ], "settlers": [ "Athens as expelling and sending authority", "Athenian inhabitants sent to settle Aegina, without a preserved total or household profile" ], "sources": [ "b30_0a264f01672843", "b30_e2e7ff631190be", "b30_a18cc05bce0087", "b30_2684f48b4f76a5" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Aegina / Kolona — source community and successor settlement", "lon": 23.4234, "lat": 37.7502, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, { "name": "Athens — expelling authority and general settler source", "lon": 23.73, "lat": 37.98 } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Thyreatis / Astros vicinity — broad refugee region; exact Thyrea site disputed", "lon": 22.73, "lat": 37.42 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Elsewhere across Greece — destinations not individually specified", "lon": 22.55, "lat": 38.45 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Aegina / Kolona — source community and successor settlement", "lon": 23.4234, "lat": 37.7502, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Thyreatis / Astros vicinity — broad refugee region; exact Thyrea site disputed", "lon": 22.73, "lat": 37.42 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Athens — expelling authority and general settler source", "lon": 23.73, "lat": 37.98 }, "to": { "name": "Aegina / Kolona — source community and successor settlement", "lon": 23.4234, "lat": 37.7502, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The forced line shows only the source-named branch from Aegina to broad Thyreatis; the ancient Thyrea site is disputed, and other destinations remain unspecified. The Athens-to-Aegina line is a general state-directed settlement route, not a household-by-household itinerary. The map does not depict the separate 405 restoration.", "evidence": "Thucydides 2.27 and Xenophon, Hellenica 2.2.9, with Polinskaya and Attic Inscriptions Online for the settlement-status caution" }, { "id": "gr-roman-fidenae-exile-land-reallocation-428", "name": "Fidenate exile, colonist reinforcement, and land reallocation", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "reported selective punitive exile, reinforcement of an existing colonist body, and partial land reassignment", "affectedLabel": "An unquantified subset of Fidenates and holders of the reassigned land", "actorLabel": "Roman inquiry and colonial authorities; an unquantified reinforced colonist body", "dates": "428 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 30, "zoomFloor": 18, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 68, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -428, "end": -428, "yearLabel": "428 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy reports that after an inquiry in 428 BCE some Fidenates were relegated to Ostia, the existing colonist body at Fidenae was reinforced, and land associated with people killed in earlier war was assigned to colonists.", "contested": "This is a retrospective annalistic report, not a recovered administrative register. The number and identity of exiles, their status and duration at Ostia, later return, colonist origins and totals, household composition, exact parcels, and resident share affected are unknown. Earlier war deaths identify the land but are not a casualty count for the 428 action. The separate 426 conquest is not folded into this event.", "displaced": [ "Some Fidenates reported relegated to Ostia, without a count", "Prior holders affected by partial reassignment of specified land", "Continuing Fidenate residents, whose city-wide share is not known" ], "settlers": [ "Roman inquiry and colonial authorities", "An existing colonist body reported reinforced, without a preserved origin or total" ], "sources": [ "b30_8976f2f5c3083d", "b30_ee1748254b10f0", "b30_c212687d080c15" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Fidenae — representative ancient-site anchor", "lon": 12.5123, "lat": 41.9784, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Ostia / port district — representative land anchor for the reported destination", "lon": 12.3236, "lat": 41.7691 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — directing and military context", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Fidenae — representative ancient-site anchor", "lon": 12.5123, "lat": 41.9784, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Ostia / port district — representative land anchor for the reported destination", "lon": 12.3236, "lat": 41.7691 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "The segmented line represents only the unquantified subset reported relegated from Fidenae to Ostia. Rome is a directing context, not the proven physical origin of every added colonist. Resident marks remain at Fidenae, and the land treatment is schematic rather than a parcel map.", "evidence": "Livy 4.30, controlled by Chiaba's source-critical review of the reported 428 Fidenae supplement and broader annalistic caution" }, { "id": "gr-roman-fidenae-conquest-enslavement-426", "name": "Conquest, killing, plunder, and enslavement at Fidenae", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "reported armed conquest, urban killing, plunder, captive allocation and sale, and political incorporation", "affectedLabel": "Fidenate defenders, captives, residents, and civic community", "actorLabel": "Roman army, commanders, and captive-disposition authorities", "dates": "426 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 24, "zoomFloor": 16, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 58, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -426, "end": -426, "yearLabel": "426 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy narrates Roman fighting inside Fidenae in 426 BCE, killing during the assault, surrender, plunder of the city and camp, allocation of selected captives, sale of the remainder, and the end of Fidenae's independent political status.", "contested": "The annalistic account is not a census. Death and captive totals, survivor shares, captive destinations, return histories, resident continuity, and later land or labor arrangements are unknown. Political incorporation is better supported than demographic disappearance. No successor settlement or 426 parcel-allotment program is reported, and the 428 exile and land action remains separate.", "displaced": [ "Fidenate defenders and residents killed during the reported assault, without a casualty total", "Selected prisoners allocated and other captives sold, without destinations or totals", "Surviving residents whose number and later status are unknown" ], "settlers": [ "Roman military and captive-disposition authorities", "No incoming successor settlement is reported in the bounded event" ], "sources": [ "b30_8976f2f5c3083d", "b30_c212687d080c15" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Fidenae — representative ancient-site anchor", "lon": 12.5123, "lat": 41.9784, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — directing and military context", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The city marker carries the reported assault, killing, plunder, captive disposition, and loss of independence. No outward route is drawn because captive destinations are unknown. No 428 exile line, land assignment, or successor-settler stream is imported into this event.", "evidence": "Livy 4.31-34, used as a retrospective annalistic narrative with the source-critical limits recorded in the Batch 30 review" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-athenian-scione-destruction-plataean-settlement-421-406-bce", "name": "Athenian destruction of Scione and Plataean successor settlement", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "military reduction, adult-male killing, enslavement of women and children, land transfer, and named successor residence", "affectedLabel": "Scionaean community, including killed adult men and enslaved women and children", "actorLabel": "Athens as coercive authority; Plataeans as successor inhabitants", "dates": "421-406 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 62, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 92, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -421, "end": -406, "yearLabel": "421 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Thucydides reports that after Athens reduced Scione in 421 BCE, it killed the adult men, enslaved the women and children, and gave the land to Plataeans to inhabit. The Plataean tenure ended with a separate Scionaean restoration conventionally dated to 405 BCE.", "contested": "The 406 endpoint is analytical—the last full year before the separate restoration—not a new action in 406. Captive destinations, casualty and captive totals, survivor outcomes, the immediate origin and number of Plataean inhabitants, households, parcels, labor arrangements, and the restored cohort are unknown.", "displaced": [ "Adult Scionaean men reported killed after the reduction", "Scionaean women and children reported enslaved, without destinations or totals", "Other survivors and later returnees whose number, location, and route are unknown" ], "settlers": [ "Athens as the directing and attacking authority", "Plataeans given the land to inhabit, without a supported immediate-origin route or population profile" ], "sources": [ "b31_8adb9b665333a1", "b31_d79ad679a7b75e", "b31_2b74ef68e910fc" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Athens — directing and attacking authority", "lon": 23.73, "lat": 37.98 } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Scione — representative ancient-site anchor", "lon": 23.56402, "lat": 39.93675 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Athens — directing and attacking authority", "lon": 23.73, "lat": 37.98 }, "to": { "name": "Scione — representative ancient-site anchor", "lon": 23.56402, "lat": 39.93675 }, "kind": "operational" } ], "placeGloss": "The solid Athens-to-Scione line is an operational authority connection, not a claimed Plataean household-origin route. The affected-site mark carries the destruction and successor residence. No captive endpoint or 405 return route is invented.", "evidence": "Thucydides 5.32.1 for the 421 destruction, enslavement, and land grant; Plutarch, Lysander 14.3, for the separately bounded restoration; ToposText for the representative site" }, { "id": "gr-roman-labici-colony-418-scope-control", "name": "Labici's capture, plunder, and colonial land allotment", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "reported military capture and plunder followed by a Senate-ordered measured allotment on conquered land", "affectedLabel": "Residents and prior landholders of Labici, whose post-conquest disposition is not recorded", "actorLabel": "Roman army and Senate; a reported allotment body of 1,500 colonists", "dates": "418 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 34, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 74, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -418, "end": -418, "yearLabel": "418 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy reports that Roman forces captured and plundered Labici in 418 BCE. He then reports a Senate-ordered settlement of 1,500 colonists, each receiving two iugera on the conquered Labican land.", "contested": "The account is retrospective and the figures are Livy's report. The city's exact site and the settlement's legal form are disputed; 1,500 may be Rome's share or the whole body including allies. Resident displacement, casualties, prior parcels, complete households, individual origins, labor relations, and the settler body's later continuity are unknown.", "displaced": [ "Labici's residents and prior landholders, whose post-conquest disposition is not preserved", "No displaced cohort or resident-expulsion route is positively identified" ], "settlers": [ "The Roman Senate as reported directing authority", "A reported body of 1,500 colonists or allottees, with allied shares, households, and later continuity disputed or unknown" ], "sources": [ "b31_cd4d043e34dd5f", "b31_ee1748254b10f0", "b31_9cba9651ca3f75" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Rome — directing city and general allottee source", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Labici area — site uncertain near Monte Compatri and Colonna", "lon": 12.746, "lat": 41.819 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Rome — directing city and general allottee source", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 }, "to": { "name": "Labici area — site uncertain near Monte Compatri and Colonna", "lon": 12.746, "lat": 41.819 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The target is a broad Labici-area anchor near Monte Compatri and Colonna, not a precise archaeological pin. The Rome-to-area line shows the reported state-directed allotment connection; it does not claim that every allottee or household originated in Rome. No resident-expulsion route is drawn.", "evidence": "Livy 4.47.1-8 for capture, plunder, the Senate order, 1,500 figure, and two-iugera formula; Chiaba for source-critical limits; Treccani for conservative topographic context" }, { "id": "prospective-athenian-destruction-colonization-melos-416-bce", "name": "Athenian destruction, takeover, and colonization of Melos", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "siege and surrender followed by killing, enslavement, island takeover, and a named successor colony", "affectedLabel": "Melian community, including killed men of military age and enslaved women and children", "actorLabel": "Athens and its forces; 500 incoming Athenian male colonists", "dates": "416 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 56, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 90, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -416, "end": -416, "yearLabel": "416 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Thucydides reports that after Melos surrendered in 416 BCE, Athens killed the captured men of military age, sold the women and children into slavery, took over the island, and later sent 500 Athenian men as colonists.", "contested": "Killed and enslaved totals, the full Melian population, captive destinations, settler household composition, affected-zone share, parcels, title machinery, and the successor labor regime are unknown. The separate 405 removal of Athenian settlers and restoration of Melians is not a second phase of this case.", "displaced": [ "Captured Melian men of military age reported killed, without a total or denominator", "Melian women and children sold into slavery, without destinations or totals", "Other survivors and later returnees whose number and location are unknown" ], "settlers": [ "Athens as directing and military authority", "Five hundred incoming Athenian men reported as colonists, not documented as 500 complete households" ], "sources": [ "b31_5c2ae2c4c9cdb0", "b31_673205e0424e37", "b31_d79ad679a7b75e", "b31_2fd7f29a0826e9" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Athens — directing and attacking authority", "lon": 23.73, "lat": 37.98 } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Melos / Milos — island takeover; ancient urban-area anchor", "lon": 24.421, "lat": 36.738 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Athens — directing and attacking authority", "lon": 23.73, "lat": 37.98 }, "to": { "name": "Melos / Milos — island takeover; ancient urban-area anchor", "lon": 24.421, "lat": 36.738 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The Athens-to-Melos line is a general conquest-and-settlement connection, not an itinerary or a claim about 500 households. The island-wide affected land and ancient urban-area anchor remain visible. No captive destination or 405 restoration route is drawn.", "evidence": "Thucydides 5.116 for the 416 surrender, killing, enslavement, takeover, and 500-man colony; Xenophon 2.2.9 and Plutarch, Lysander 14.3, only for the separately bounded restoration; ToposText for the site" }, { "id": "gr-roman-bola-contested-land-taking-415-414", "name": "Capture, countercapture, and reinforcement of Bola", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "repeated military capture of a town and territory, brief Aequian reinforcement, and failed Roman colony and land-division proposals", "affectedLabel": "Residents / landholders", "actorLabel": "Forces / incoming reinforcement", "dates": "415-414 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 34, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 74, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -415, "end": -414, "yearLabel": "415 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -415, "end": -415, "label": "Roman capture of Bola and its territory; proposed Roman colony vetoed" }, { "start": -414, "end": -414, "label": "Aequian countercapture and fresh colonists; Roman recapture; renewed proposal failed" } ] } ], "story": "Livy reports that Rome took Bola and its territory in 415 BCE. In 414 the Aequi recaptured the town and strengthened it with fresh colonists before Rome took it again. The Roman proposals to found a colony or divide the conquered land were not implemented.", "contested": "Bola's exact site is unresolved. Livy does not identify the Aequian colonists' origin, number, households, land share, or duration, and he does not identify a resident cohort removed from the town. Roman control after the 414 recapture is not measured here; the final capture in 389 BCE is a separate event.", "displaced": [ "Bolani and other residents or landholders affected by repeated capture and territorial claims", "No resident-removal cohort or destination is positively identified" ], "settlers": [ "Roman and Aequian military authorities contesting the town and territory", "Aequian fresh colonists reported by Livy, with origin, number, household form, and duration unknown" ], "sources": [ "b32_9c1e593a698d81", "b32_ee1748254b10f0" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Bola — site uncertain in the Aequian-Latin frontier zone", "lon": 13.02, "lat": 41.86 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — political context only", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The target is a broad rendering anchor in the Aequian-Latin frontier, not a precise archaeological pin or territorial polygon. Rome is shown only for political context. No Roman colony route, invented Aequian origin, or resident-removal route is drawn.", "evidence": "Livy 4.49 and 4.51 for the captures, Aequian fresh colonists, and failed proposals; Chiaba, printed pages 97-99, for source-critical and topographic limits" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-scionaean-restoration-405-bce", "name": "Scionaean restoration after Athenian control ended", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state-directed civic restoration and reoccupation after the forced end of Athenian control", "affectedLabel": "Restored / outgoing residents", "actorLabel": "Authority / returnees", "dates": "c. 405 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 36, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 78, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -405, "end": -405, "yearLabel": "c. 405 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Plutarch reports that after Athenian control was forcibly ended, Lysander restored the Scionaeans to their homes. The date c. 405 BCE is conventional, based on the post-Aegospotami campaign sequence rather than a year stated in the restoration passage.", "contested": "Plutarch says Athenians were driven out, but the passage does not establish total resident clearance, identify every departing occupant, or give a destination. It also does not give the number, household composition, diaspora origins, routes, or later persistence of the restored Scionaeans. The 421 killing, enslavement, and Plataean tenure are a separate event.", "displaced": [ "Scionaeans previously displaced and restored to their home community, in an unknown number", "Residents under departing Athenian control whose identity, number, and destination are not fully reported" ], "settlers": [ "Lysander and Spartan authority directing the restoration", "Restored Scionaeans whose diaspora origins and return routes are unknown" ], "sources": [ "b32_d79ad679a7b75e", "b32_e2e7ff631190be", "b32_2b74ef68e910fc" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Scione — representative ancient-site anchor", "lon": 23.56402, "lat": 39.93675 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The single target-centered mark represents restoration and reoccupation at Scione. No origin is invented for the dispersed returnees, and no outgoing route or total-clearance claim is drawn for people under Athenian control.", "evidence": "Plutarch, Life of Lysander 14.3, for the restoration; the surrounding post-Aegospotami sequence for the conventional c. 405 BCE date; ToposText for the representative site" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-lysandrian-aeginetan-restoration-405-bce", "name": "Lysander's restoration of Aeginetans to Aegina", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state-directed gathering, civic restoration, and reoccupation after a long diaspora", "affectedLabel": "Restored / outgoing residents", "actorLabel": "Authority / returnees", "dates": "405 BCE", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 32, "zoomFloor": 26, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 78, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -405, "end": -405, "yearLabel": "405 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Xenophon reports that Lysander gathered as many former Aeginetan inhabitants as he could from their dispersed locations and restored their city to them. Plutarch independently reports that Aeginetans received their city back.", "contested": "The sources explicitly describe an incomplete gathering. They do not supply a returnee total, household composition, diaspora share, individual origins, routes, restored parcels, or later demographic persistence. Thyrea was one earlier refugee branch, not the demonstrated origin of all returnees; the identity, number, and destinations of departing Athenian residents are also unresolved.", "displaced": [ "Former Aeginetan inhabitants gathered from an unquantified and geographically dispersed diaspora", "Residents associated with the preceding Athenian tenure whose departure and destinations are not fully reported" ], "settlers": [ "Lysander and Spartan authority directing the civic restoration", "Restored Aeginetans, expressly not a complete return census" ], "sources": [ "b32_e2e7ff631190be", "b32_d79ad679a7b75e", "b32_0a264f01672843" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Aegina / Kolona — restored island community", "lon": 23.4234, "lat": 37.7502 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The single island mark represents restoration and civic reoccupation at Aegina. No Thyrea-to-Aegina or Sparta-to-Aegina origin is invented, and no complete-return or departing-resident route is drawn.", "evidence": "Xenophon, Hellenica 2.2.9, for the expressly incomplete gathering and restoration; Plutarch, Lysander 14.3, for independent restoration wording; Thucydides 2.27 only for the earlier diaspora context" }, { "id": "prospective-spartan-restoration-melos-405-bce", "name": "Removal of Athenian settlers and restoration of Melian exiles", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state-directed removal of a settler population and restoration and reoccupation by exiles", "affectedLabel": "Removed / restored residents", "actorLabel": "Authority / returnees", "dates": "405 BCE", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 28, "zoomFloor": 24, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 78, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -405, "end": -405, "yearLabel": "405 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "In 405 BCE Lysander removed the Athenian settler population from Melos and restored Melian exiles to the island, reversing the civic and territorial outcome imposed by Athens in 416 BCE.", "contested": "The sources give no removed or returning total, household composition, destination for the Athenian settlers, individual origins for the Melian returnees, restored parcels, or complete-return share. The 500 Athenian colonists, killing, and enslavement belong to the separate 416 event and are not values for this restoration.", "displaced": [ "Athenian settlers removed from Melos, with number and destination unknown", "Melian exiles restored to Melos, with number, completeness, and individual origins unknown" ], "settlers": [ "Lysander and Spartan authority directing the reversal", "Melian exiles returning to and reoccupying their home island" ], "sources": [ "b33_5fefa9f3e0d42e", "b33_673205e0424e37", "b33_d79ad679a7b75e", "b33_2fd7f29a0826e9" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Melos / Milos — restored island community", "lon": 24.421, "lat": 36.738 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The single island mark represents removal, restoration, and reoccupation at Melos. No Sparta origin, diaspora origin, settler destination, or reverse Athens route is invented.", "evidence": "Rutishauser, printed page 121 and note 272, for the separate 405 removal and restoration; Xenophon 2.2.9 and Plutarch, Lysander 14.3, for restoration of the Melians; ToposText for the site" }, { "id": "gr-roman-veii-conquest-allotment-incorporation-396-387", "name": "Conquest, land allotment, and incorporation of Veii", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "conquest and captive sale followed by household land allotment, selective incorporation, and territorial reorganization", "affectedLabel": "Captured residents / prior landholders", "actorLabel": "Roman authority / allottees / incorporated communities", "dates": "396–387 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 24, "zoomFloor": 18, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 76, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -396, "end": -387, "yearLabel": "396 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -396, "end": -396, "label": "Roman capture of Veii and sale of captured free inhabitants" }, { "start": -393, "end": -393, "label": "Household allotment of substantial Veientine land reported by Livy" }, { "start": -389, "end": -389, "label": "Selective citizenship and land for supportive Veientines, Capenates, and Faliscans" }, { "start": -387, "end": -387, "label": "Territory organized through four new Roman tribes" } ] } ], "story": "After Rome captured Veii in 396 BCE, Livy reports the sale of captured free inhabitants, a later household distribution of Veientine land, selective citizenship and land grants, and territorial organization through new tribes. Archaeology indicates that habitation, cult activity, and mixed community life continued under the changed Roman order.", "contested": "The literary and archaeological records do not support total destruction or harmless absorption. Captive, casualty, allottee, migrant, parcel, and continuing-resident totals are unknown; Diodorus gives a different land measure from Livy. The event joins one territorial sequence without treating every phase or cohort as identical.", "displaced": [ "Captured free inhabitants reported sold after the conquest, without destinations or a total", "Veientine landholders affected by distribution, with the displaced and continuing shares unknown", "Continuing and selectively incorporated Veientine and neighboring communities" ], "settlers": [ "Roman forces and governing institutions directing conquest and reorganization", "Roman plebeian household allottees on Veientine land, without a surviving beneficiary total", "Veientines, Capenates, and Faliscans selectively granted citizenship and land" ], "sources": [ "b33_58a490d47bf2a0", "b33_0976ebcd565674", "b33_9c43b175998e93", "b33_ee1748254b10f0", "b33_51686b596012e1", "b33_fdd8a65321b617", "b33_31f17c176f0671" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Veii / Isola Farnese — representative city and plateau anchor", "lon": 12.3897, "lat": 42.0233 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — directing authority and political context", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Veii is a representative city-and-plateau anchor, not a parcel map for the entire ager Veientanus. Rome is political context. No captive destination, exact allottee itinerary, or total-clearance boundary is drawn.", "evidence": "Livy Books 5 and 6 and Diodorus 14.102.4 for the reported conquest, sale, land distribution, grants, and civic organization; Chiaba, Liverani, and the archaeological synthesis for source limits and community continuity; ToposText for the site" }, { "id": "gr-roman-circeii-latin-refoundation-393", "name": "Roman-backed colony at Circeii", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state-backed colonial settlement and durable land control, with prior-resident consequences unknown", "affectedLabel": "Affected land / prior residents", "actorLabel": "Roman authority / colonists", "dates": "393 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 22, "zoomFloor": 18, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 76, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -393, "end": -393, "yearLabel": "393 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Diodorus reports that the Romans dispatched a colony to Circeii in 393 BCE. Modern source analysis regards renewed Roman control and refoundation after Volscian control as probable, and Circeii continued as a Latin colony.", "contested": "The named colony is secure; the full mechanism is not. Livy's 395 authorization gives a colonist total and parcel terms but names only Volscian territory, and Circeii is a probable rather than certain identification. Those figures are not assigned to this event. Prior residents, removal, battle, parcels, settler composition, and demographic persistence are unknown. The source-conflicted early-fifth-century Circeii episode is separate and remains held.", "displaced": [ "Local or Volscian residents and landholders potentially affected by the colonial order, with their disposition unknown", "No displaced resident cohort, destination, or removal route is demonstrated" ], "settlers": [ "Roman authority reported dispatching the colony", "Colonists at Circeii, with origin, number, households, and parcel terms unknown" ], "sources": [ "b33_9c43b175998e93", "b33_58a490d47bf2a0", "b33_ee1748254b10f0", "b33_4edcea4a9b5bc9" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Circeii / Monte Circeo — colony and headland anchor", "lon": 13.0827, "lat": 41.2301 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — directing authority and political context", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Circeii is a site and headland anchor; Rome is shown only as directing context. No settler-origin route, resident-removal route, parcel polygon, disputed personnel total, or total-replacement cue is drawn.", "evidence": "Diodorus 14.102.4 for the named 393 colony; Livy 5.24 only as uncertain context for an unnamed 395 project; Chiaba, printed pages 101-104, for the probable Circeii reconstruction and its limits; ToposText for the site" }, { "id": "gr-roman-vitellia-aequian-capture-flight-393", "name": "Aequian capture of Vitellia and colonist flight to Rome", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "Aequian armed capture and colonist flight", "affectedLabel": "Colonists driven out / other residents unknown", "actorLabel": "Aequian attackers / escaping colonists", "dates": "393 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 34, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 76, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -393, "end": -393, "yearLabel": "393 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy reports that the Aequi captured the Roman colony of Vitellia by night. Most colonists escaped uninjured and reached Rome.", "contested": "Vitellia's exact site is unknown. The sources do not give the colonist total, identify the fate of non-colonist residents, report deaths, describe property transfer or successor settlement, or establish whether anyone returned. Chiaba infers the settlement's disappearance from its later absence; this is not a direct ancient statement of total vacancy. The unnamed 395 BCE authorization in Volscian territory and its figures are not assigned to this event.", "displaced": [ "Most Roman colonists at Vitellia, reported escaping and reaching Rome", "Non-colonist residents, if any, whose number and fate are unknown" ], "settlers": [ "Aequian attackers who captured the colony by night", "No replacement population is documented in the bounded event" ], "sources": [ "b34_9ab40185e3fcb8", "b34_ee1748254b10f0" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Vitellia — broad Aequian-Latin frontier anchor; exact site unknown", "lon": 13.12, "lat": 41.93 } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Rome — destination named by Livy", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Vitellia — broad Aequian-Latin frontier anchor; exact site unknown", "lon": 13.12, "lat": 41.93 }, "to": { "name": "Rome — destination named by Livy", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "The origin is a broad uncertainty anchor, not a precise Vitellia pin. The one schematic route follows Livy's named destination and represents the reported majority of colonists, not every resident or a reconstructed itinerary.", "evidence": "Livy 5.29.3-4 for the nighttime capture and most colonists reaching Rome; Chiaba, printed pages 100-101, for the site and later-disappearance problem" }, { "id": "gr-roman-bola-final-capture-destruction-389", "name": "Final Roman capture and disappearance of Bola", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state-commanded military capture followed by an attributed specialist inference of civic disappearance", "affectedLabel": "Army, camp, city, and residents with unreported outcomes", "actorLabel": "Roman army under Camillus / Aequian defenders", "dates": "389 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 34, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 74, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -389, "end": -389, "yearLabel": "389 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy reports that Camillus surprised the Aequian army at Bola and captured its army, camp, and city in the first assault. Chiaba interprets this as Bola's final destruction because the city disappears from the later record.", "contested": "Livy directly establishes capture, but does not say that Bola was razed or report deaths, resident flight, enslavement, parcel transfer, replacement settlement, immediate land use, or a continuing population. Later disappearance is a specialist inference rather than a measured demographic endpoint. The failed Roman colony and allotment proposals in the separate 415-414 BCE Bola sequence are not part of this event.", "displaced": [ "Aequian defenders and residents affected by the capture, with their number and fate unknown", "No displaced cohort, destination, or resident-removal route is documented" ], "settlers": [ "Roman forces under Camillus carrying out the capture", "No incoming settler population is documented in the bounded event" ], "sources": [ "b34_204f330763b38d", "b34_ee1748254b10f0" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Bola — site uncertain in the Aequian-Latin frontier zone", "lon": 13.02, "lat": 41.86 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — political context only", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Bola is shown as the same broad uncertainty area used for the earlier contested sequence; Rome is political context only. No precise site, resident or settler route, razing, mass-death, vacancy, parcel, or replacement cue is drawn.", "evidence": "Livy 6.2.13 for capture of the army, camp, and city; Chiaba, printed page 98, for the separately attributed final-destruction and disappearance interpretation" }, { "id": "gr-roman-satricum-roman-conquest-colony-386-385", "name": "Roman capture and colony order at Satricum", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "military conquest followed by a state colony order and formulaic land allotment", "affectedLabel": "Volscian defenders, residents, and landholders", "actorLabel": "Roman forces, senate, and ordered citizen colonists", "dates": "386–385 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 34, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 76, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -386, "end": -385, "yearLabel": "386 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -386, "end": -386, "label": "Roman forces storm Satricum and accept the Volscian surrender" }, { "start": -385, "end": -385, "label": "The senate orders a Roman citizen colony and individual allotments" } ] } ], "story": "Livy reports that Roman forces stormed Volscian-held Satricum in 386 BCE and accepted its surrender. The following year, the senate ordered a colony of 2,000 Roman citizens and allotments of two and one-half iugera per person.", "contested": "The 2,000 citizens and allotment formula are reported ancient figures, not an independently verified census or parcel record. The sources do not establish how many colonists arrived, whether complete households came, which holdings changed hands, or whether Volscian residents left, remained, or were incorporated. Archaeology establishes Volscian occupation at Satricum, not exact resident continuity across the capture and colony order. Satricum changed hands again in 382 BCE.", "displaced": [ "Volscian defenders and residents of an existing settlement, whose later legal, residential, and demographic outcomes are unknown", "No displaced cohort, destination, or resident-removal route is identified" ], "settlers": [ "Roman citizen colonists ordered to Satricum by the senate, with actual arrivals and household composition unknown", "Roman military and political authorities directing the capture and colony order" ], "sources": [ "b35_204f330763b38d", "b35_ee1748254b10f0" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Satricum / Le Ferriere — settlement and control target", "lon": 12.755, "lat": 41.513 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — directing authority and political context", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Le Ferriere is the secure settlement anchor. Rome is political context, not a demonstrated immediate origin for every colonist. No colonist route, Volscian removal route, parcel boundary, casualty field, or total-clearance cue is drawn.", "evidence": "Livy 6.8.9-10 and 6.16.6 for the capture, surrender, colony order, and reported allotment figures; Chiaba, printed pages 109-118, for the Le Ferriere identification, archaeological context, and source limits" }, { "id": "gr-roman-pomptine-division-settlement-383-358", "name": "Pomptine land division and later tribal consolidation", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state land division and later tribal consolidation of a rural settlement region", "affectedLabel": "Pomptine rural land and prior residents", "actorLabel": "Roman commissioners, authorities, and settlers", "dates": "383 and 358 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 34, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 76, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -383, "end": -358, "yearLabel": "383 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -383, "end": -383, "label": "Five commissioners are appointed to divide Pomptine land" }, { "start": -358, "end": -358, "label": "Pomptina is created; Chiaba links it to beneficiaries of preceding distributions" } ] } ], "story": "Livy reports that five commissioners were appointed in 383 BCE to divide Pomptine land. In 358 BCE he records the creation of the Pomptina tribe. Chiaba interprets Pomptina as enrolling beneficiaries of preceding Pomptine distributions, and Broadhead identifies Roman settlement in the region by the later milestone.", "contested": "The two notices establish separate milestones, not uninterrupted activity from 383 to 358 BCE. The link between them is a modern specialist interpretation. No recipient total, allotment size, household composition, prior-resident outcome, or reconstructed parcel map survives. This rural residual excludes Publilia, which Chiaba places in Hernican territory, and excludes the separately treated urban footprints of Satricum, Setia, Nepet, and other colonies.", "displaced": [ "Prior residents and landholders in the rural Pomptine region, whose identities, movements, and continuing share are unknown", "No displaced cohort, destination, or removal route is identified" ], "settlers": [ "Roman recipients and settlers in the Pomptine region, without a surviving number, household profile, or precise tract list", "Commissioners and later tribal institutions organizing land and civic administration" ], "sources": [ "b35_204f330763b38d", "b35_e43c3cfe2b9b4f", "b35_ee1748254b10f0", "b35_69ae694cc5228e" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Rural Pomptine plain — representative affected-land anchor, not a parcel centroid", "lon": 12.95, "lat": 41.45 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — directing authority and political context", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The mark is a restrained rural-region anchor, not a parcel survey or an urban-colony footprint. It excludes Satricum, Setia, Nepet, and Publilia. Rome is political context; no ordinary settler or resident-removal route is drawn.", "evidence": "Livy 6.21.4 for the 383 land-division board and 7.15.12 for Pomptina in 358; Chiaba, printed pages 112-115, for the attributed linkage and the exclusion of Publilia; Broadhead, printed pages 12-14, for regional Roman settlement" }, { "id": "gr-roman-satricum-countercapture-382", "name": "Praenestine and Volscian capture of Satricum", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "polity-coalition capture of a defended colony with severe but unspecified treatment of captives", "affectedLabel": "Defenders and captured people at Satricum", "actorLabel": "Praenestine and Volscian forces", "dates": "382 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 34, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 76, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -382, "end": -382, "yearLabel": "382 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy reports that Praenestine and Volscian forces stormed Satricum, a Roman colony defended by its colonists, and then treated the captured people brutally.", "contested": "The report establishes armed capture and severe coercion but does not specify what was done to the captives. It gives no number, death count, deportation, enslavement, resident-removal route, successor settlement, property transfer, or duration of the new control. The next narrated Roman victory occurs outside Satricum and does not expressly say that Rome recovered the town.", "displaced": [ "Roman colonists and other people captured at Satricum, with their number and subsequent fate unknown", "No displaced cohort, destination, or resident-removal route is identified" ], "settlers": [ "Praenestine and Volscian armed forces carrying out the capture", "No incoming resident or settler population is documented" ], "sources": [ "b35_204f330763b38d", "b35_ee1748254b10f0" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Satricum / Le Ferriere — settlement and control target", "lon": 12.755, "lat": 41.513 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — directing authority and political context", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 }, { "name": "Praeneste / Palestrina — allied polity in the 382 capture", "lon": 12.89, "lat": 41.84 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The case reuses the Le Ferriere settlement anchor. Rome and Praeneste are political context only. No army-movement, captive, resident, or settler route—and no death, destruction, replacement, parcel-transfer, or incorporation cue—is drawn.", "evidence": "Livy 6.22.4 for the storming of Satricum and unspecified brutal treatment of captured people; Chiaba, printed pages 115-116, for the event's distinct actors, sequence, and source limits" }, { "id": "gr-roman-satricum-latin-burning-377", "name": "Latin burning and settlement break at Satricum", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "deliberate city burning followed by a substantial but nonfinal settlement break", "affectedLabel": "Satricum's built community and residents whose presence and fate are unknown", "actorLabel": "Latin forces withdrawing from Satricum", "dates": "377 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 34, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 76, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -377, "end": -377, "yearLabel": "377 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy reports that Latin forces, withdrawing from Satricum, burned its sacred and secular buildings except the temple of Mater Matuta. The later sequence supports a substantial settlement break, but not a final abandonment.", "contested": "The source does not identify who was present, whether residents died or fled, where anyone went, or who used the land immediately afterward. The outcome family records a removal-oriented inference from deliberate city destruction and a settlement break; it does not assert a directly observed total expulsion. Satricum was refounded later, so the break was substantial but nonfinal.", "displaced": [ "Residents who may have been affected by the burning, with their presence, number, and fate unknown", "No displaced cohort, destination, death total, or removal route is documented" ], "settlers": [ "Latin armed forces carrying out the burning", "No incoming resident or settler population is documented" ], "sources": [ "b36_204f330763b38d", "b36_ee1748254b10f0" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Satricum / Le Ferriere — burned settlement anchor", "lon": 12.755, "lat": 41.513 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — regional political context only", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Le Ferriere is the affected settlement anchor. Rome is geographic and political context only. No route, casualty field, total-clearance cue, replacement settlement, parcel transfer, or special destruction symbol is drawn.", "evidence": "Livy 6.33.4 for the burning and the surviving Mater Matuta temple; Chiaba, printed pages 115-116, for the distinct event sequence and source-critical limits" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-athenian-samos-expulsion-cleruchy-365-323-bce", "name": "Athenian expulsion and cleruch settlement on Samos", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state-directed expulsion, land division, and phased cleruch settlement", "affectedLabel": "Samians expelled from a large part of the island and those who remained", "actorLabel": "Athenian state, commanders, officials, and cleruchs", "dates": "365/4–323 BCE", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 46, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 76, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -365, "end": -323, "yearLabel": "365 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": -365, "end": -364, "label": "A large part of the Samian population is expelled and the first cleruch group is dispatched" }, { "start": -361, "end": -360, "label": "A further Athenian cleruch dispatch is recorded" }, { "start": -352, "end": -351, "label": "Another Athenian cleruch dispatch is recorded" }, { "start": -334, "end": -333, "label": "An Athenian civic body on Samos is directly attested" } ] } ], "story": "After Athens captured Samos, a large part of the Samian population was expelled and Athenian cleruchs were settled on divided land. Further cleruch groups followed, and an Athenian civic body on the island is directly attested in 334/3 BCE.", "contested": "The evidence does not support total Samian clearance, an exact expelled or remaining population, household composition, parcel boundaries, or a general exile destination. A reported 2,000 people belongs to one attributed contingent, not the whole settlement program. The later Samian restoration is a separate event beginning in 322/1 BCE.", "displaced": [ "A large part of the Samian population, without a reliable total or general destination", "Samians who remained are acknowledged but cannot be counted or mapped" ], "settlers": [ "Athenian cleruchs sent in several documented dispatches and settled on divided land", "The Athenian civic and administrative community attested on Samos" ], "sources": [ "b36_41b0a05ebc0f86", "b36_2fe8966bffe0af", "b36_6d71e56489bf34", "b36_0ae98da78efb1e" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Athens — directing polity and cleruch source", "lon": 23.73, "lat": 37.98, "routeUse": "route_origin" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Samos — affected island and cleruch settlement", "lon": 26.98, "lat": 37.75 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Athens — directing polity and cleruch source", "lon": 23.73, "lat": 37.98, "routeUse": "route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Samos — affected island and cleruch settlement", "lon": 26.98, "lat": 37.75 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The Athens-to-Samos line is a schematic direction of cleruch settlement, not an itinerary or a measure of contingent size. No Samian exile fan-out, total-clearance cue, parcel map, proportional ancient quantity, Iasos destination, or restoration layer is drawn.", "evidence": "Attic Inscriptions Online, IG XII 6, 1 264, for the inscription and editorial chronology; Sylloge 312 and Diodorus 18.18.9 for exile and restoration evidence; Moreno, printed pages 215-217, for land division and the limits of the attributed contingent figure" }, { "id": "gr-roman-satricum-roman-destruction-enslavement-346", "name": "Roman destruction of Satricum and sale of captives", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state conquest, civic destruction, captive removal to Rome, and sale without a documented immediate replacement settlement", "affectedLabel": "People at Satricum who surrendered, were taken into custody, survived, or remained uncounted", "actorLabel": "Roman army, consul, triumphal custody apparatus, and captive sale", "dates": "346 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 34, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 76, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -346, "end": -346, "yearLabel": "346 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy reports that Rome defeated the Volscian force at Satricum, accepted a surrender, sacked and burned the city except for the Mater Matuta temple, marched an attributed group of 4,000 captives in the triumph at Rome, and sold them.", "contested": "The 4,000 is an attributed ancient figure, not a verified census or magnitude. Livy also preserves a conflicting version in which those sold were slaves already captured at Satricum. Noncombatants are unnumbered; deaths, surviving-resident shares, post-sale destinations, later conditions, return, legal-property machinery, and successor land use are unknown. The family describes a removal-oriented source-land outcome, not demonstrated total clearance.", "displaced": [ "Captives marched from Satricum to the attested Rome triumph and custody endpoint", "An unnumbered noncombatant population whose outcomes are not resolved by the source" ], "settlers": [ "Roman state and military actors directing the conquest, custody, and sale", "No incoming or replacement resident population is documented in the bounded event" ], "sources": [ "b37_a8ce04564609d5", "b37_ee1748254b10f0" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Satricum / Le Ferriere — affected city and captive-route source", "lon": 12.755, "lat": 41.513, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Rome — attested triumph and custody endpoint; later sale destinations unknown", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Satricum / Le Ferriere — affected city and captive-route source", "lon": 12.755, "lat": 41.513, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Rome — attested triumph and custody endpoint; later sale destinations unknown", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 41.9 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "The dashed route states only the supported Satricum-to-Rome custody journey. Rome is an attested intermediate endpoint, not a final home or identified slave market. The line has no proportional weight and does not encode the attributed 4,000. The map shows no death share, total-clearance cue, settler stream, parcel transfer, or successor use.", "evidence": "Livy 7.27 for surrender, destruction, the Mater Matuta exception, captive triumph, sale, and the conflicting prisoner-status tradition; Chiaba, printed pages 115-116, for the distinct 346 event and source-critical limits" }, { "id": "ancient-achaemenid-sidonians-susa-babylon", "name": "Achaemenid destruction of Sidon and prisoner transfer", "region": "West Asia", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "royal punitive conquest followed by state-directed prisoner transfer into named custody destinations", "affectedLabel": "Sidonians killed, captured, transferred, surviving, or otherwise affected by the city's fall", "actorLabel": "Artaxerxes III, Achaemenid forces, and the royal custody system", "dates": "345 BCE (some conversions 346 BCE)", "extent": "imperial", "viewWidth": 82, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 76, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -345, "end": -345, "yearLabel": "345 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "The contemporary Artaxerxes III Chronicle records prisoners captured at Sidon being brought to Babylon and Susa and says that women among the Babylon-bound group entered the royal palace. Diodorus separately narrates betrayal, executions, and household fires after Persian entry.", "contested": "The project displays 345 BCE; some calendar conversions give 346 BCE. Diodorus's more-than-40,000 claim is attributed ancient narrative, not a verified death count. Prisoner totals, destination shares, complete household composition, occupations, custody duration, return, source-population shares, legal-property machinery, and any incoming settlement at Sidon remain unknown. Later source-city recovery does not prove prisoner release or return.", "displaced": [ "Prisoners directly recorded as brought from Sidon to Babylon and Susa, without destination shares", "Women among the Babylon-bound prisoners directly recorded as entering the royal palace", "Sidonian survivors whose number, location, and later relationship to the city are unresolved" ], "settlers": [ "Achaemenid royal and military actors directing conquest and custody", "No incoming settler or replacement population is documented at Sidon" ], "sources": [ "b37_45deb89bb3f6a4", "b37_7e91d32a5323ca", "b37_f45000fcb04533", "b37_64d6dfc1731e62" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Sidon — damaged source city and prisoner-route origin", "lon": 35.37, "lat": 33.56, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Babylon — named royal custody destination; women entered the palace", "lon": 44.4258, "lat": 32.535 }, { "name": "Susa — named royal custody destination", "lon": 48.2569, "lat": 32.1895 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Sidon — damaged source city and prisoner-route origin", "lon": 35.37, "lat": 33.56, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Babylon — named royal custody destination; women entered the palace", "lon": 44.4258, "lat": 32.535 }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Sidon — damaged source city and prisoner-route origin", "lon": 35.37, "lat": 33.56, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Susa — named royal custody destination", "lon": 48.2569, "lat": 32.1895 }, "kind": "forced" } ], "placeGloss": "The equal-weight dashed routes show only the two destinations named by the contemporary chronicle; they are not exact itineraries or destination shares. Babylon's label identifies the specifically documented palace-custody branch without assigning that status or an occupation to every prisoner. Neither destination is shown as a normal settler colony, and the source city retains a surviving-community cue.", "evidence": "ABC 9, lines 1-8, for the two destination streams and Babylon palace branch; Diodorus 16.43-45 for source-side executions, household fires, and the attributed ancient total; Izdimirski page 9 and Iranica for date and deportation context" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-macedonian-alexander-thebes-destruction-distribution-335-bce", "name": "Alexander's destruction of Thebes", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "military capture followed by allied civic destruction, enslavement, refuge denial, garrisoning, and disposition of non-sacred territory", "affectedLabel": "Thebans killed, enslaved, dispersed, exempted, or otherwise affected by the allied disposition", "actorLabel": "Alexander, Macedonian forces, and the allied council", "dates": "335 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 34, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 76, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -335, "end": -335, "yearLabel": "335 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Diodorus and Arrian describe Thebes's capture, killing, enslavement, and destruction. The allied disposition preserved a garrison in the Cadmeia, distributed non-sacred territory, denied refuge to exiles, and included named personal and sacred-land exemptions.", "contested": "Diodorus's reported 6,000 dead and more than 30,000 captives are attributed ancient figures, not verified demographic shares. Some escapees reached Athens, but no modal exile or captive destination is known. Territory distribution does not demonstrate an incoming settler community, recipient shares, or exact parcels. Cassander's 316 restoration is a separate, direction-reversing event after nineteen years, not a phase of this case.", "displaced": [ "Thebans killed, enslaved, or dispersed, without verified totals or a modal destination", "Named exempted people and surviving groups who prevent a total-clearance interpretation" ], "settlers": [ "Macedonian and allied authorities imposing the destruction and territorial disposition", "No incoming resident or settler community is demonstrated in 335 BCE" ], "sources": [ "b37_1ea6aed283a346", "b37_269204f8eda54c" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Thebes — destroyed civic community; Cadmeia and sacred-land exceptions", "lon": 23.32, "lat": 38.32 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Athens — contextual refuge destination for some escapees, not the modal route", "lon": 23.73, "lat": 37.98 }, { "name": "Plataea — neighboring allied community restored after Thebes's fall", "lon": 23.27, "lat": 38.21 }, { "name": "Orchomenus — neighboring allied community restored after Thebes's fall", "lon": 22.98, "lat": 38.49 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Thebes is the affected target. Athens, Plataea, and Orchomenus are geographic and political context, not population-route endpoints. No general exile arrow, captive fan-out, recipient settlement, parcel map, casualty share, or proportional ancient quantity is drawn. The Cadmeia and sacred-land exceptions remain explicit in the case text.", "evidence": "Diodorus 17.12-14 and Arrian 1.8-1.9 for capture, killing, enslavement, destruction, refuge denial, the Cadmeia garrison, territory distribution, and named exemptions" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-samian-exile-restoration-322-bce", "name": "Perdiccas's restoration of Samian exiles to Samos", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state-authorized return of a long-exiled population and restoration of its city and territory", "affectedLabel": "Samian exiles returning after forty-three years and Athenian cleruchs whose tenure ended", "actorLabel": "Perdiccas, post-Alexander royal authority, and returning Samian exiles", "dates": "322/1 BCE", "extent": "island", "viewWidth": 32, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 76, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -322, "end": -321, "yearLabel": "322/1 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "After Alexander's death, Perdiccas implemented the restoration of the Samian exiles. Diodorus says that, after forty-three years away, they were brought home and restored to their city and territory, ending Athenian cleruchic tenure on the island.", "contested": "The evidence does not identify one return origin or route, a returnee count, household composition, exact parcels, individual titles, the number or destination of departing Athenian cleruchs, lethal coercion during implementation, or the restored order's duration. Iasos is connected to named restoration advocates and some exiles, not to the origin of every returnee.", "displaced": [ "Samian exiles returning after a stated forty-three years, without a reliable total or single origin", "Athenian cleruchs whose island tenure ended, with their number, departure, and destination unresolved" ], "settlers": [ "Returning Samians restored to their city and territory rather than a novel settler population", "Perdiccas and the post-Alexander royal authority implementing the restoration" ], "sources": [ "b38_samos_diodorus_638a051400", "b38_samos_aio_41b0a05ebc", "b38_samos_sylloge_2fe8966bff" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Samos — restored city and territory; return origins unknown", "lon": 26.98, "lat": 37.75 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Ephesus — western Anatolian geographic context only", "lon": 27.34, "lat": 37.94 }, { "name": "Miletus — western Anatolian geographic context only", "lon": 27.28, "lat": 37.53 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Samos is the restored homeland and territorial target. Ephesus and Miletus provide western Anatolian context only; neither is a return origin. No Iasos, Athens, Babylon, royal-headquarters, or departing-cleruch route is drawn, and the target does not imply complete return or complete cleruch removal.", "evidence": "Diodorus 18.18.6 and 18.18.9 for the post-Alexander disposition, implemented return, forty-three-year exile, and restored city and territory; Attic Inscriptions Online, IG XII 6, 1 264, for the pre-restoration Athenian community and editorial chronology; Sylloge 312 for named advocates and the broader restoration process" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-macedonian-cassander-theban-restoration-316-bce", "name": "Cassander's restoration of Thebes", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state-authorized survivor return, civic rebuilding, and re-establishment with Boeotian consent and wider Greek assistance", "affectedLabel": "Surviving Thebans summoned from dispersal, without a complete return count or origin register", "actorLabel": "Cassander, consenting Boeotians, returning Thebans, and Greek cities assisting the rebuilding", "dates": "316 BCE in the atlas chronology; often dated 316/15 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 34, "zoomFloor": 20, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 76, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -316, "end": -316, "yearLabel": "316 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Cassander summoned surviving Thebans from dispersal and undertook to re-establish Thebes. With Boeotian consent and material assistance from Greek cities, the city was rebuilt and the Thebans recovered their civic home.", "contested": "The restoration is often dated 316/15 BCE; the atlas uses 316 BCE as its chronological coordinate. The sources do not show that every survivor returned, name a common origin or route, identify restored parcels or owners, quantify the returning population, or demonstrate reversal of every consequence of Alexander's 335 destruction.", "displaced": [ "Surviving Thebans returning from a dispersed and incompletely known set of places", "Thebans who did not return or whose outcomes remain undocumented" ], "settlers": [ "Returning Thebans restoring their own civic community rather than a novel settler population", "Cassander, consenting Boeotians, and contributing Greek cities directing or assisting reconstruction" ], "sources": [ "b39_thebes_summons_34921e89fe", "b39_thebes_rebuilding_5d56d69fec", "b39_thebes_pausanias_fbc8f7ac18", "b39_thebes_whitley_0462e7501b" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Thebes — restored civic community; return share and parcels unknown", "lon": 23.32, "lat": 38.32 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Athens — rebuilt much of the wall; not a demonstrated return origin", "lon": 23.73, "lat": 37.98 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Thebes is the restored homeland and target. Athens is shown only because Diodorus names its rebuilding assistance; it is not a demonstrated origin for the returnees. No diaspora fan-in, route, parcel map, return share, or claim of complete reversal is drawn.", "evidence": "Diodorus 19.53.2 for Cassander's summons and undertaking; 19.54.1-3 for Boeotian consent, rebuilding, wider Greek assistance, and recovery of the city; Pausanias 9.7.1-3 for independent attribution and assistance; Whitley for the modern 316/15 BCE qualification" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-hellenistic-lysimachos-skepsis-withdrawal-reconstitution", "name": "Lysimachos releases the Skepsians to return home", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "royal release from an earlier synoecism followed by civic return to Skepsis", "affectedLabel": "Skepsians permitted to leave Alexandreia Troas and return home; cohort size and composition unknown", "actorLabel": "Lysimachos and the returning Skepsian civic community", "dates": "After Ipsos (301 BCE), before 281 BCE; exact year unknown", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 24, "zoomFloor": 16, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 58, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -300, "end": -300, "yearLabel": "AFTER IPSOS", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "After the battle of Ipsos brought the Troad under Lysimachos, he permitted the Skepsians to leave the Alexandreia Troas synoecism and return to their homeland. Strabo distinguishes them from the Cebrenians, who remained in Alexandreia at that time.", "contested": "The exact year is unknown: the event occurred after Ipsos in 301 BCE and before Lysimachos's death in 281 BCE. Its 300 BCE map position is only a presentation-order anchor immediately after the terminus, not an asserted year or midpoint. The evidence does not give a count, household composition, charter, parcels, exact route, travel duration, or long-term demographic outcome.", "displaced": [ "Skepsians previously incorporated into Antigoneia or Alexandreia and permitted to return home", "Cebrenians explicitly remaining in Alexandreia and excluded from this event" ], "settlers": [ "Returning Skepsians reconstituting their civic community rather than a novel settler population", "Lysimachos as the authority permitting release from the synoecism" ], "sources": [ "b39_skepsis_strabo_33_0f5e17063d", "b39_skepsis_strabo_52_847b6fdcf6", "b39_skepsis_cohen_98441de0b9" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Alexandreia Troas — named synoecism departure community; exact departure point unknown", "lon": 26.15475, "lat": 39.75647, "routeUse": "movement" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Skepsis — representative homeland site; approximate marker, not a civic boundary", "lon": 26.688003, "lat": 39.82554 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Alexandreia Troas", "lon": 26.15475, "lat": 39.75647 }, "to": { "name": "Skepsis", "lon": 26.688003, "lat": 39.82554 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The line shows only the source-named direction from the Alexandreia Troas synoecism to Skepsis. It is not a known road, itinerary, convoy, duration, or complete-household route. Both points are representative site markers, not ancient civic boundaries. No Cebren branch is drawn.", "evidence": "Strabo 13.1.33 for the distinct Skepsian return and Cebrenian non-return; Strabo 13.1.52 for Lysimachos's release of the Skepsians from the synoecism; Cohen printed pp. 145-148 for the post-Ipsos sequence and unresolved exact year" }, { "id": "ancient-mauryan-kalinga-war-removal", "name": "Aśoka's conquest of Kalinga and captive removal", "region": "South Asia", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "imperial conquest, lethal violence, and state-directed captive removal without a demonstrated incoming replacement project", "affectedLabel": "People in Kalinga whom Aśoka's later inscription says were killed, died, or were carried away; destinations and later outcomes unknown", "actorLabel": "Aśoka's Mauryan state, as represented in Major Rock Edict XIII", "dates": "c. 261/260 BCE; converted from the inscription's eighth post-consecration year", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 68, "zoomFloor": 28, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 78, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -261, "end": -261, "yearLabel": "c. 261/260 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Aśoka's later Major Rock Edict XIII says that his conquest of Kalinga carried away about 150,000 people, killed about 100,000, and caused many times that number to die. These are the royal inscription's large, rounded claims, not independently verified counts. The same text presents the king's retrospective remorse, while later Kalinga edicts show continuing Mauryan administration among a resident population.", "contested": "The inscription directly supports conquest, killing, and people carried away, but it does not identify a battlefield, routes, destinations, receiving institutions, the amount of land vacated, a replacement population, release, return, or restitution. Published translations vary in how they describe those affected. No figure here controls marker size, route width, opacity, animation duration, or a synthetic total.", "displaced": [ "People whom Major Rock Edict XIII says were carried away from Kalinga, with destinations, distance, duration, and return unknown", "People whom the royal inscription says were killed or died, without an independently verified demographic count", "Continuing Kalingan communities under later Mauryan administration" ], "settlers": [ "Mauryan imperial authorities and officials governing the conquered territory", "No documented incoming replacement-settler population in this bounded event" ], "sources": [ "b40_kalinga_hultzsch_8bd3b2d7b5", "b40_kalinga_sircar_602dc08559", "b40_kalinga_lahiri_db44a2deb6", "b40_kalinga_ray_2be1828c9b", "b40_kalinga_sisupalgarh_049fe0b5f4" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Kalinga — broad affected region; battlefield and captive destinations unknown", "lon": 85.8, "lat": 20.3 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The marker is a broad eastern-India orientation cue for affected Kalinga, not a battlefield, capital, population centroid, or origin for every captive. No arrow is drawn because the captive destinations are unknown and the renderer has no reviewed destination-unknown route symbol. Dhauli and Jaugada are later inscriptional and administrative context, not proven battle or captive-route points.", "evidence": "Hultzsch, Kalsi Major Rock Edict XIII, printed pp. 47-50, and Sircar, Shahbazgarhi XIII, printed pp. 51-55, for the attributed royal claims; Lahiri printed pp. 216-220 for chronology and numerical calibration; Ray p. 119 and Smith-Mohanty pp. 91-92 for inscription geography and continuing settlement context" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-hellenistic-lysimachos-astakos-destruction", "name": "Lysimachos's razing of Astakos", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "ruler-directed razing and loss of an inhabited urban base, with resident movement and successor land use unknown", "affectedLabel": "Astakos as an inhabited urban community; deaths, flight, incorporation, and interim residence unknown", "actorLabel": "Lysimachos, as named by Strabo; forces and immediate circumstances not described", "dates": "Between 301 and 281 BCE (inferred); exact year unknown", "extent": "local", "viewWidth": 22, "zoomFloor": 18, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 72, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -300, "end": -300, "yearLabel": "301–281 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Strabo says that Astakos was razed by Lysimachos. The statement belongs sometime after the battle of Ipsos in 301 BCE and before Lysimachos's death in 281 BCE, but no surviving source supplies an exact year or describes what happened to the residents.", "contested": "This stop qualifies because destruction of an inhabited, independently mapable urban base meets the atlas's land-taking rule; it does not establish expulsion, death, complete abandonment, permanent vacancy, or replacement. Its removal-without-replacement family is the closest structural fit for community and urban-base loss without demonstrated successor use, not a claim that resident flight is observed. The 300 BCE playback position is only a presentation-order anchor near the bracket's opening, not an asserted event year. Nikomedes's later transfer is a separate act and lends this card no route, destination, cohort, or trait.", "displaced": [ "The Astakian urban community whose built civic base Strabo says was razed", "Residents whose immediate and later fates are not stated by the destruction source" ], "settlers": [ "No incoming settler or successor-use population is demonstrated for this destruction phase", "Lysimachos as the named ruler responsible for the razing, with operational agents unknown" ], "sources": [ "b40_astakos_strabo_destruction_080048251a", "b40_astakos_paganoni_chronology_0aa1f50bf7", "b40_astakos_bekker_continuity_bcd114173f", "b40_astakos_pleiades_d89863d19a" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Astakos — approximate urban site; resident fate after the razing unknown", "lon": 29.928794, "lat": 40.714558 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Astakos is an approximate site cue on the inner Gulf of İzmit, not an ancient civic boundary or household centroid. The stop is target-only: no route, casualty symbol, emptied-land fade, successor footprint, or causal bridge to Nikomedeia is drawn.", "evidence": "Strabo 12.4.2 for the separately attributed razing; Paganoni printed pp. 32-35 for the post-301/pre-281 chronological ceiling; Bekker-Nielsen printed pp. 21, 26, and 28 n. 3 for later Astakos identity; Pleiades 511169 for the approximate site cue" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-hellenistic-nikomedes-astakian-transfer-nikomedeia", "name": "Nikomedes I transfers Astakian inhabitants to Nikomedeia", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "ruler-directed transfer and civic concentration of an Astakian cohort into a royal foundation", "affectedLabel": "Astakian inhabitants transferred into Nikomedeia; moved share, household composition, and permanence unknown", "actorLabel": "Nikomedes I as founder of Nikomedeia and director of the transfer", "dates": "In the 260s BCE; exact transfer year unknown", "extent": "local", "viewWidth": 2.2, "zoomFloor": 2.2, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 6, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -264, "end": -264, "yearLabel": "260s BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Strabo says that the founder of Nikomedeia transferred inhabitants of Astakos into the new city. Other ancient evidence identifies Nikomedes I as the founder, and later traditions place Nikomedeia's foundation in the 260s BCE. The move concentrated part of the Astakian civic community in a durable royal foundation.", "contested": "No source dates the transfer itself to one exact year, states that every Astakian moved, identifies a legal instrument, describes troops or threats, gives a route or travel mode, or establishes the pre-existing destination population's fate. The 264 BCE playback position is only a presentation-order anchor within the foundation horizon. It does not make 264 BCE the transfer's date. Lysimachos's earlier razing is related predecessor history, not one continuous operation, and its destruction or lethal profile is not inherited here.", "displaced": [ "An Astakian cohort transferred from its source community into Nikomedeia", "Astakians who may have remained, returned, or lived elsewhere, whose outcomes are not enumerated" ], "settlers": [ "Transferred Astakian inhabitants becoming one constitutive population of Nikomedeia", "Nikomedes I and the royal foundation's authorities directing the concentration" ], "sources": [ "b40_astakos_strabo_transfer_f9e1c8684f", "b40_nikomedeia_memnon_105ba65458", "b40_nikomedeia_cohen_59d74b2aaf", "b40_astakos_bekker_continuity_bcd114173f", "b40_astakos_pleiades_d89863d19a", "b40_nikomedeia_pleiades_6539a452e1" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Astakos — approximate source community; transferred share unknown", "lon": 29.928794, "lat": 40.714558, "routeUse": "movement" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Nikomedeia — royal foundation; existing target population and transferred share unknown", "lon": 29.923486, "lat": 40.76445 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Astakos", "lon": 29.928794, "lat": 40.714558 }, "to": { "name": "Nikomedeia", "lon": 29.923486, "lat": 40.76445 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The short line is a schematic source-to-target cue between approximate Astakos and Nikomedeia site markers. It is not a known road, sea crossing, convoy, travel time, all-population route, or proof that the transferred cohort was identical to the residents affected by Lysimachos's earlier razing.", "evidence": "Strabo 12.4.2 for the founder-directed Astakos-to-Nikomedeia transfer; Memnon 12.1 only for Nikomedes's foundation opposite Astakos; Cohen printed pp. 400-401 for the 260s traditions and synoecism; Bekker-Nielsen printed pp. 21, 26, and 28 n. 3 for durability and continuing Astakos identity; Pleiades 511169 and 511337 for representative points" }, { "id": "ancient-qin-eastern-elites-xianyang-resettlement", "name": "Qin relocates powerful and wealthy households to Xianyang", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state-directed population transfer and ordered concentration at the imperial capital", "affectedLabel": "Powerful and wealthy households whom the Shiji says were relocated from All-under-Heaven; individual origins and later outcomes unknown", "actorLabel": "The First Emperor and the Qin imperial government", "dates": "221 BCE; the Shiji's annalistic placement after imperial unification", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 16, "zoomFloor": 12, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 20, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -221, "end": -221, "yearLabel": "221 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "After Qin unified the empire, the Shiji reports that the First Emperor relocated 120,000 powerful and wealthy households from All-under-Heaven to Xianyang. The household figure is one transmitted ancient claim, not an independently verified census or a license to estimate a person total. The order concentrated a selected population near the imperial capital and weakened regional concentrations of wealth and power.", "contested": "The recorded verb means move or relocate. In this imperial order it supports strong state direction, but it does not separately document punitive deportation, detention, killing, property confiscation, successor settlement, one route, or six former-state streams. The origin cue is broad and schematic. It does not claim that every household came from one place or that the six defeated states contributed equal or known shares.", "displaced": [ "Powerful and wealthy households whom the Shiji says were ordered to Xianyang", "Household members whose exact origins, travel arrangements, property outcomes, return, and later continuity are unknown" ], "settlers": [ "Relocated households concentrated at the Qin capital", "Qin imperial authorities directing the relocation; no origin-land replacement population is demonstrated" ], "sources": [ "b41_qin_shiji_0b1455c735", "b41_qin_ctext_991fa4205a", "b41_qin_barbieri_6c21ce7262", "b41_qin_korolkov_e8428c26fd", "b41_qin_xianyang_805091ff2c" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Broad eastern-realm orientation cue — household origins not enumerated", "lon": 113.7, "lat": 33.8, "routeUse": "movement" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Xianyang — approximate Qin-capital site cue; household locations unknown", "lon": 108.858, "lat": 34.414 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Broad eastern realm", "lon": 113.7, "lat": 33.8 }, "to": { "name": "Xianyang", "lon": 108.858, "lat": 34.414 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The line is a schematic convergence from a broad eastern-realm orientation cue to the approximate Qin-capital site. It is not an itinerary, convoy, source-state allocation, household centroid, travel time, or quantitative symbol. The Shiji says All-under-Heaven and does not enumerate six streams.", "evidence": "Shiji 6, twenty-sixth year, for the attributed household order; Barbieri-Low and Korolkov-Hein for migration terminology and state-space interpretation; Wikidata Q2360265 for the approximate Xianyang site cue" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-hellenistic-lysimacheia-thracian-sack-dispersal", "name": "Thracians destroy and disperse Lysimacheia", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "armed capture, plunder, burning, captivity, and regional flight without a demonstrated successor settlement", "affectedLabel": "Lysimacheians left captive, sold, or scattered after the city was captured and burned; totals and destinations unknown", "actorLabel": "Thracian attackers; specific ruler, polity, and tribe not identified by the sources", "dates": "c. 198 BCE; reconstructed after Philip V's withdrawal and before the 196 BCE restoration", "extent": "local", "viewWidth": 18, "zoomFloor": 14, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 24, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -198, "end": -198, "yearLabel": "c. 198 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Livy says Thracians captured, plundered, and burned Lysimacheia, leaving it deserted and largely ruined. Some former inhabitants had been enslaved or sold; others were scattered around the Chersonese and Hellespont. Polybius corroborates depopulation after Philip V withdrew the protecting troops. Cohen places the sack around 198 BCE.", "contested": "The sources do not name a Thracian ruler, polity, tribe, invasion origin, route, casualty total, captive destination, or successor settlers. Desertion is direct evidence of severe community loss, not proof that every resident was removed or that the vacancy was permanent. The 196 BCE restoration is a separate linked reversal and contributes no state direction, return, newcomer, or durability trait to this card.", "displaced": [ "Lysimacheians enslaved or sold after the capture", "Residents scattered around the Chersonese and Hellespont", "Residents whose death, survival, destination, and return are not enumerated" ], "settlers": [ "No incoming successor-settler population is documented for the destruction event", "Thracian attackers as the named collective agents, with their political identity unresolved" ], "sources": [ "b41_lysimacheia_livy_4bf88fa9f8", "b41_lysimacheia_polybius_4c22dd03b5", "b41_lysimacheia_cohen_a78895764d", "b41_lysimacheia_trismegistos_69c6e738f1", "b41_lysimacheia_topostext_cdf3bde453" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Lysimacheia — approximate Bolayır-area site cue; kilometer-scale uncertainty", "lon": 26.76451, "lat": 40.51724 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The approximate site marker carries the destruction and community-loss meaning. No normal movement arrow is drawn because neither the attackers' origin nor the refugees' and captives' destinations are enumerated. The marker is not a surveyed ancient boundary or population centroid.", "evidence": "Livy 33.38 for capture, burning, captivity, and dispersal; Polybius 18.4.5-6 for depopulation after troop withdrawal; Cohen printed pp. 82-86 for c. 198 BCE chronology; Trismegistos and ToposText for an approximate, explicitly uncertain site cue" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-hellenistic-antiochos-lysimacheia-restoration", "name": "Antiochos III restores and repopulates Lysimacheia", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "royal rebuilding, return and ransom of former residents, and recruitment of additional colonists", "affectedLabel": "Returning Lysimacheian refugees and redeemed captives, plus additional colonists whose origins and shares are unknown", "actorLabel": "Antiochos III, Seleukos, royal forces, returning residents, and recruited colonists", "dates": "196 BCE; renewed Lysimacheian family flight followed Antiochos's withdrawal in 190 BCE", "extent": "local", "viewWidth": 18, "zoomFloor": 14, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 24, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -196, "end": -196, "yearLabel": "196 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "In 196 BCE Antiochos III began rebuilding Lysimacheia's walls and houses. Livy and Appian describe former residents ransomed from slavery or gathered from regional flight, additional colonists recruited with incentives, and material support for renewed settlement. Antiochos left Seleukos and forces to continue the work. The program deliberately reversed part of the earlier destruction and dispersal.", "contested": "The sources give no complete count, returnee or newcomer share, recruitment origins, parcels, legal-status bundle, coerced labor stream, or exact completion date. Appian says that when Antiochos abandoned the Chersonese in 190 BCE, Lysimacheians accompanied his flight with wives and children. That limits the demonstrated restoration to roughly six years without proving every inhabitant left. The map is target-only because return and newcomer origins remain unenumerated.", "displaced": [ "Former Lysimacheians returning from regional flight", "Former residents redeemed from slavery and brought back", "Lysimacheian families who fled again with Antiochos in 190 BCE, with totality unknown" ], "settlers": [ "Additional colonists recruited with advantages, origins and numbers unknown", "Antiochos III and Seleukos directing reconstruction and repopulation" ], "sources": [ "b41_lysimacheia_livy_4bf88fa9f8", "b41_lysimacheia_polybius_4c22dd03b5", "b41_lysimacheia_cohen_a78895764d", "b41_lysimacheia_diodorus_5a4cd52e45", "b41_lysimacheia_appian_1_c136178fcb", "b41_lysimacheia_appian_6_77f2897b88", "b41_lysimacheia_trismegistos_69c6e738f1" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Lysimacheia — approximate Bolayır-area site cue; kilometer-scale uncertainty", "lon": 26.76451, "lat": 40.51724 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The target-only cue represents return, reoccupation, rebuilding, and mixed repopulation at the approximate city site. It does not invent origins for refugees, redeemed captives, or new colonists, and it does not encode shares, legal status, or a durable outcome beyond the 190 BCE reversal.", "evidence": "Livy 33.38 and 33.41 for rebuilding, ransom, return, recruitment, and Seleukos's role; Polybius 18.50-51 as Antiochos's attributed diplomatic claim; Appian Syrian Wars 1 for mixed repopulation and 6.28 for the 190 BCE renewed family flight; Cohen printed pp. 82-86 for chronology" }, { "id": "gr-roman-carthage-destruction-enslavement-land-seizure-149-146", "name": "Roman destruction of Carthage, captive removal, and territorial annexation", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "siege and urban destruction; lethal assault; guarded survivor and captive removal; territorial closure and annexation", "affectedLabel": "Carthaginians killed, displaced, captured, or left under guard after the final assault; exact totals and destinations unknown", "actorLabel": "Roman forces under Scipio Aemilianus, followed by Roman territorial and provincial authorities", "dates": "149–146 BCE; siege through destruction and territorial settlement", "extent": "local", "viewWidth": 12, "zoomFloor": 10, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 18, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -149, "end": -146, "yearLabel": "149–146 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "After a three-year siege, Roman forces took Carthage in a six-day urban assault marked by fire, collapsing buildings, and extensive killing. Appian reports that 50,000 men and women left under guard after Scipio agreed to spare those who wished to depart. Rome then destroyed the city, restricted residence and rebuilding in its principal zones, reassigned some land, imposed taxes, and established provincial administration.", "contested": "Appian's 50,000 is a transmitted ancient claim, not a census, and his opened account does not say that this group was sold. Orosius, writing much later, separately gives 25,000 women and 30,000 men and says nearly all captives were sold. The two totals describe different accounts and are not combined. No exact death total, captive destination register, complete survivor denominator, or evidence for sowing the site with salt is available.", "displaced": [ "Carthaginians killed during the assault, number unknown", "People whom Appian says departed under Roman guard after their lives were spared", "Captives whom Orosius later reports were sold, with destinations unknown" ], "settlers": [ "No incoming successor-settler population belongs to this event", "Roman authorities imposing territorial closure, taxation, and provincial administration" ], "sources": [ "b42_appian_punic_26_41ab9aa684", "b42_appian_punic_27_29c62463b3", "b42_orosius_a473a22052", "b42_kim_3a2470ea76", "b42_carthage_place_584e41168c" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Carthage — representative ancient-city cue", "lon": 10.323056, "lat": 36.853056 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "The target-centred marker represents the assaulted city and immediate territorial closure. No normal route is drawn because captive and survivor destinations are not enumerated. It does not mark an empty province, an exact urban boundary, or a quantitative total.", "evidence": "Appian Punic Wars 126–135 controls the assault, departure, destruction, restrictions, land settlement, taxation, and administration; Orosius 4.23 supplies only the separately attributed later enslavement testimony; Kim supplies subsequent legal-land context; Pleiades supplies the representative place cue" }, { "id": "gr-roman-junonia-carthage-land-allotment-123-111", "name": "Junonia colonial allotments near ruined Carthage", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state colonist recruitment, town and boundary layout, land allotment, continued possession and transfer, and legal confirmation", "affectedLabel": "Unidentified prior interests in annexed land near ruined Carthage; resident movement is not demonstrated", "actorLabel": "Gaius Gracchus, Fulvius Flaccus, Roman land commissioners, and recruited colonists", "dates": "123/122–111 BCE; the program's start year is uncertain", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 27, "zoomFloor": 22, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 34, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -123, "end": -111, "yearLabel": "123/122–111 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Appian says Gaius Gracchus and Fulvius Flaccus laid out a town where Carthage had stood, allotted six thousand colonists, and recruited them from across Italy. Although the colony's formal status became a political target, Kim's reading of the law of 111 BCE shows that original allotments remained in possession and that later purchasers received legal protection.", "contested": "Appian says colonists, not families or households. Their composition, individual origins, and long-term demographic scale are unknown. Kim reads 200 iugera as a maximum, probably for an upper rank, not an equal grant to each colonist; it is not multiplied into a total footprint. The sources do not identify all prior holders, demonstrate resident clearance, or prove uninterrupted colonial institutional life.", "displaced": [ "Prior land interests affected by colonial allotment, identities and outcomes unknown", "No resident-removal cohort demonstrated for the bounded Junonia program" ], "settlers": [ "Colonists whom Appian says were recruited from across Italy", "Allottees and later purchasers whose holdings received legal protection by 111 BCE" ], "sources": [ "b42_appian_civil_9873161386", "b42_kim_3a2470ea76", "b42_carthage_place_584e41168c" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Italy — broad recruitment area, not one literal origin", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 42, "routeUse": "movement" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Carthage — representative ancient-city cue", "lon": 10.323056, "lat": 36.853056 } ], "cameraContext": [], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Recruitment across Italy", "lon": 12.5, "lat": 42 }, "to": { "name": "Junonia allotment area near ruined Carthage", "lon": 10.323056, "lat": 36.853056 }, "kind": "movement" } ], "placeGloss": "The Italy-to-Carthage line is a broad recruitment cue, not a literal Rome origin, one convoy, equal regional contribution, or measured flow. The target is an orientation point near ruined Carthage, not the full allotment footprint or a cleared-resident polygon.", "evidence": "Appian Civil Wars 1.24 controls the six-thousand-colonist claim and broad Italian recruitment; Kim controls the legal survival, transfers, buyer protection, 200-iugera ceiling, and limits of the footprint; Pleiades supplies the representative Carthage cue" }, { "id": "gr-roman-marian-africa-veteran-allotment-program-103-100", "name": "Marian land-allotment program in Africa", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "core", "mechanism": "state-law land assignment and organized beneficiary placement, with beneficiary identity and site implementation disputed", "affectedLabel": "Unidentified prior land interests; no resident removal or prior-holder fate is demonstrated", "actorLabel": "Saturninus and Marius; reported or later-claimed beneficiaries whose identity may include veterans, Indigenous Gaetulian clients, or both", "dates": "103 BCE; later site claims do not extend the event to 100 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 8, "zoomFloor": 7, "viewPadding": 0.22, "reachFitCap": 14, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -103, "end": -103, "yearLabel": "103 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "A late ancient notice reports that Saturninus carried an African land-allotment law associated with Marius in 103 BCE. Modern scholarship treats the reported 100 iugera as a maximum rather than an equal grant. A damaged inscription may connect Cercina to colonial action, while much later inscriptions preserve Marian associations at several mainland communities.", "contested": "The evidence does not establish one overseas migration route, a beneficiary count, equal parcels, identified prior holders, resident removal, or continuous site-level implementation. The late notice calls the recipients Marius's veterans, but scholars dispute whether the mainland associations instead concern Indigenous Gaetulian clients or a mixed population. Cercina is fragmentary; Uchi Maius, Thibaris, and Thuburnica are later, disputed claims and remain context within one event.", "displaced": [ "Prior land interests affected by the reported assignment program, identities and outcomes unknown", "No documented removal cohort for the bounded program" ], "settlers": [ "Beneficiaries of the reported African land law, identity and origins disputed", "Possible colonists at Cercina and later-claimed Marian communities, not four independently demonstrated deductions" ], "sources": [ "b42_phillips_569a73d2d0", "b42_kim_3a2470ea76", "b42_biglino_4c8ab88623", "b42_mastino_8a3421aed5", "b42_cercina_place_922199e0f4", "b42_uchi_place_17e3320a6e", "b42_thibaris_place_4e5da188ce", "b42_thuburnica_place_75592fd0b6" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Cercina / Kerkennah — fragmentary colonial-action cue", "lon": 11.2, "lat": 34.716 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Uchi Maius — later, disputed Marian claim", "lon": 9.084255, "lat": 36.4115 }, { "name": "Thibaris — later, disputed Marian claim", "lon": 9.083041, "lat": 36.505393 }, { "name": "Thuburnica — later, disputed Marian claim", "lon": 8.467818, "lat": 36.526159 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Cercina is a fragmentary program cue. The three mainland labels are grouped as later, disputed Marian claims and only orient the reader. No point is a population centroid, exact colony boundary, separate event, or proof of equal implementation, and no origin route is drawn.", "evidence": "Phillipo and Kim control the 103 BCE date, late law notice, 100-iugera ceiling, and evidentiary limits; Biglino and Mastino preserve more affirmative and epigraphic reconstructions without resolving the dispute; four checked place records provide low-precision orientation cues" }, { "id": "gr-roman-sulla-alban-hills-veteran-occupation", "name": "Reported Sullan military land occupations at Bovillae, Castrimoenium, and Gabii", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "informal military land occupation or appropriation under a reported Sullan legal frame", "affectedLabel": "Prior landholders or users at three continuing municipal sites; identities, movement, parcels, and scale unknown", "actorLabel": "Soldiers or veterans named in two late notices and unidentified Sullan-phase occupiers at Castrimoenium", "dates": "after late 82 BCE; exact implementation and duration unknown", "extent": "local", "viewWidth": 3.8, "zoomFloor": 3, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 7, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -82, "end": -82, "yearLabel": "AFTER 82 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "The anonymous, late Liber coloniarum reports land occupation or appropriation under a Sullan attribution at three municipalities near Rome. At Bovillae veteran soldiers reportedly held lots by appropriation; at Gabii soldiers are named; at Castrimoenium appropriation is reported without identifying the Sullan-phase holders as veterans. The notices are presented together because they share one source tradition and formula, not because one decree or synchronized program is known.", "contested": "Campbell cautions that field systems cannot independently date the activity to Sulla and preserves a possible later-regularization reading. No source identifies prior owners, resident movement, exact plots, acreage, equal cohorts, a common commander, or duration. The municipalities continued. Spadavecchia's grouping is modern interpretation, not a second ancient witness or proof of a formal colony.", "displaced": [ "Prior landholders or users whose claims may have been affected, identities and movement unknown", "Municipal residents whose communities continued; no complete expulsion or replacement is demonstrated" ], "settlers": [ "Veteran soldiers explicitly named at Bovillae", "Soldiers explicitly named at Gabii", "Sullan-phase holders at Castrimoenium, not identified as veterans in the notice" ], "sources": [ "b43_campbell_8099a9b224", "b43_spadavecchia_6a53c9b45e", "b43_bovillae_place_d6d9eba3d5", "b43_castrimoenium_place_992dbad9fc", "b43_gabii_place_24f5192b48" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Bovillae — veteran soldiers reported holding lots by appropriation", "lon": 12.617018, "lat": 41.76587 }, { "name": "Castrimoenium — appropriation reported; Sullan-phase holder identity uncertain", "lon": 12.658524, "lat": 41.769809 }, { "name": "Gabii — soldiers reported holding land by appropriation", "lon": 12.719727, "lat": 41.887373 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — geographic context only, not a documented origin", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Rome is geographic context, not an origin. The three target cues mark source-reported occupations at differently evidenced sites. They are not equal cohorts, synchronized actions, exact parcels, a unified territorial zone, or three independently documented operations. No origin, resident-removal route, field-grid chronology, Aricia, or Tusculum is drawn.", "evidence": "Campbell supplies the anonymous late notices and their source-critical limits; Spadavecchia supplies a modern informal-occupation interpretation; three Pleiades records supply representative site cues only" }, { "id": "gr-roman-sulla-arretium-82-60", "name": "Sullan colony and unresolved land confiscation at Arretium", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state publicatio, incomplete land distribution, and same-location colonist and resident co-presence", "affectedLabel": "Earlier possessors and other Arretines whose land claims may have changed; individual losses, departures, and scale unknown", "actorLabel": "Sullan colonists and state legal authority; colonist origin, number, household composition, and exact allotments unknown", "dates": "After late 82 BCE; colonists attested by 63 BCE, unresolved land recorded in 60 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 13, "zoomFloor": 9, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 30, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -82, "end": -82, "yearLabel": "AFTER 82 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Cicero attests a colonist community at Arretium by 63 BCE. In 60 BCE he wrote that Sulla had made Arretine land public without completing its division and proposed leaving it in the possessors' hands. The evidence therefore shows a colonist presence beside incomplete legal land change, not a continuously operating 82–60 BCE program or complete territorial replacement.", "contested": "The accepted Arretine reading in Ad Atticum 1.19.4 has a place-name variant. Cicero does not directly identify a known veteran allotment, the distributed share, exact parcels, origin, numbers, or physical removal. Pliny later names three Arretine groups, but assigning them to old, Sullan, and Caesarian communities is modern reconstruction. The later Caesarian settlement is outside this event. Conquest and incorporation is an Atlas boundary classification; no local Sullan battle or sack is attested.", "displaced": [ "Earlier possessors whose land was legally made public but in part remained undivided and in their hands", "Any individual land losses or departures remain unknown; no resident-removal destination is documented" ], "settlers": [ "A Sullan colonist community attested by 63 BCE", "Colonist origins, numbers, households, parcels, and demographic share remain unknown" ], "sources": [ "b44_cicero_murena_ec3a4d0f9f", "b44_cicero_atticus_06bd4cf4bf", "b44_pliny_e3cb3d73e6", "b44_thein_e8215d80e4", "b44_santangelo_7cf450ad0c", "b44_campbell_8099a9b224", "b44_arretium_place_320d850cab" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Arretium / Arezzo — colonist community and incompletely divided public land", "lon": 11.863048, "lat": 43.471274 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — political context only, not a documented origin", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Arretium is a representative city cue, not the boundary of confiscated land or a veteran parcel. Rome supplies political and geographic context only. No origin route, resident-removal route, battle, casualty layer, filled territory, cadastral grid, complete replacement, or later Caesarian settlement is drawn.", "evidence": "Cicero supplies direct colonist and incomplete-publicatio evidence with a disclosed place-name variant; Pliny supplies later group names whose historical assignment is reconstructed; Thein, Santangelo, and Campbell supply modern source criticism; Pleiades supplies orientation only" }, { "id": "gr-roman-sulla-neapolis-massacre-82", "name": "Sullan night entry and reported massacre at Neapolis", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "treacherous military night entry, reported extensive killing, escape or flight, and fleet seizure", "affectedLabel": "People at Neapolis subjected to Appian's reported killing and the few escapees; identities, denominator, casualties, destinations, and returns unknown", "actorLabel": "A Sullan-aligned military division; commander, starting point, personal Sullan order, and sustained program unknown", "dates": "82 BCE; exact date unknown", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 16, "zoomFloor": 10, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 34, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -82, "end": -82, "yearLabel": "82 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Appian reports that Sullan-aligned troops entered Neapolis by treachery at night, killed in sweeping terms apart from a few escapees, and seized the city's triremes. The episode is shown as one reported attack, not as a deportation, land-confiscation program, settler movement, or measured emptying of the city.", "contested": "Appian is the sole located ancient narrative for the attack and wrote centuries later. The Greek leaves the victim noun implicit; the translation's totalizing wording is not a census. No source here establishes Sulla's personal order, a casualty proportion, escape destinations, private-land confiscation, veteran settlement, permanent vacancy, or successor population. Neapolis continued as an urban community. A soldier allotment under Titus about 160 years later is a separate event. Removal without durable replacement is an Atlas boundary resemblance: massacre is central, flight secondary, and no successor settlement project is demonstrated.", "displaced": [ "People subjected to the reported extensive killing, with no defensible casualty count or denominator", "A few reported escapees whose destinations, distance, duration away, and return are unknown" ], "settlers": [ "Sullan-aligned troops as attackers, not an incoming resident population", "No Sullan veteran colony or successor settlement project is demonstrated" ], "sources": [ "b44_appian_44f9258261", "b44_appian_greek_e8a62f60fa", "b44_thein_e8215d80e4", "b44_campbell_8099a9b224", "b44_cicero_atticus_06bd4cf4bf", "b44_princeton_c047f59a6d", "b44_neapolis_place_527cf41c92" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Neapolis — reported night entry, extensive killing, escape, and fleet seizure", "lon": 14.25287, "lat": 40.839995 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — political context only, not a documented origin", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Neapolis is a representative city cue, not an assault route, massacre footprint, fleet position, or boundary. Rome supplies political and geographic context only. No route from Rome, escape destination, deportation line, land hatching, veteran stream, empty-city treatment, Titus-era allotment, or multiple phase is drawn.", "evidence": "Appian supplies the sole located ancient narrative for the 82 BCE attack and its totalizing report; the Greek text calibrates the implicit victim noun; Thein, Campbell, Cicero, and the Princeton reference constrain later settlement claims and urban continuity; Pleiades supplies orientation only" }, { "id": "gr-roman-sulla-norba-destruction-82", "name": "Norba's seizure by treachery, resident self-destruction, and urban abandonment", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "armed resistance and treacherous entry; resident self- and mutual killing; resident burning; urban-site abandonment", "affectedLabel": "Norba's residents under imminent armed seizure; individual survival, destinations, and the demographic denominator are unknown", "actorLabel": "A Sullan-aligned force under Aemilius Lepidus as the coercive attacker; residents as the immediate agents of Appian's reported self-destruction and burning", "dates": "82/81 BCE; exact year uncertain", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 12, "zoomFloor": 9, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 30, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -82, "end": -82, "yearLabel": "82/81 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "Appian reports that Norba resisted until a Sullan-aligned force under Aemilius Lepidus entered by treachery at night. Under imminent capture, residents killed themselves or one another and burned the town; the fire denied the attackers plunder. The ancient urban site was not durably restored.", "contested": "Appian wrote centuries later and his totalizing account is not a population census. It establishes the attack's coercive setting while attributing the immediate killing and burning to residents, not to a documented Sullan extermination order. Modern sources date the destruction to 82 or 81 BCE. No source here establishes every resident's fate, survivor destinations, legal confiscation, replacement settlement, or permanent vacancy of the wider landscape, where later activity continued.", "displaced": [ "Residents subjected to imminent armed seizure and Appian's reported self- and mutual destruction", "Any survivors, movements, destinations, time away, or returns remain unknown" ], "settlers": [ "A Sullan-aligned force as attacker, not an incoming resident population", "No successor settlement or replacement-population stream is demonstrated" ], "sources": [ "b45_appian_44f9258261", "b45_santangelo_7cf450ad0c", "b45_ocd_norba_6cba699522", "b45_norma_c58e97d29c", "b45_norba_landscape_464d2b89e3", "b45_norba_place_9179b85de2" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Norba — treacherous entry, resident self-destruction, fire, and ancient-site abandonment", "lon": 12.960234822672941, "lat": 41.59160734144302 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — political context only, not a documented origin", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Norba is a representative city cue, not a gate, fire perimeter, victim map, or municipal boundary. Rome supplies political and geographic context only. No route from Rome, attacker approach, survivor destination, deportation line, successor settlement, project use, filled territory, or whole-landscape permanent-vacancy treatment is drawn.", "evidence": "Appian supplies the late narrative of resistance, treacherous entry, resident self-destruction, fire, and failed plunder; modern historical, local, and landscape sources calibrate the date and limit nonrestoration to the ancient urban site; Pleiades supplies orientation only" }, { "id": "gr-roman-sulla-praeneste-82-80", "name": "Praeneste massacre, confiscated holdings, and veteran colony", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "surrender; state-supervised group-specific killing; plunder; confiscation of holdings; veteran allotment; later ownership concentration; local continuity", "affectedLabel": "Praenestine men subjected to severe killing, spared wives and children, and local landholders affected by confiscations; exact totals and destinations unknown", "actorLabel": "Sulla and his forces in the punishment; a state-directed Sullan veteran colony whose settler origins, number, households, and parcels are unknown", "dates": "82 BCE; veteran colony established afterward, exact date unknown", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 12, "zoomFloor": 9, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 30, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -82, "end": -82, "yearLabel": "82 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "After Praeneste surrendered in 82 BCE, Appian reports that Sulla supervised severe, group-specific killing of men, spared wives and children, and gave the wealthy town over to plunder. Confiscated holdings subsequently supported a secure Sullan veteran colony. Later ownership became concentrated, while local families survived or returned.", "contested": "Appian's totalizing language and Plutarch's incompatible figure are not a casualty census. The veteran colony is secure, but its foundation date, settlers' origins and numbers, household composition, parcel boundaries, territorial share, and demographic balance remain unknown. Cicero supports later concentrated ownership and regulation of Cornelian allotments, not complete transfer of every holding. The mixed outcome combines severe elimination and durable newcomer presence with spared families and local continuity.", "displaced": [ "Praenestine men subjected to Appian's reported group-specific killing after surrender, without a trustworthy victim denominator", "Wives and children explicitly spared in Appian's account, alongside surviving or returning local families whose movements are not mapped", "Landholders affected by confiscated holdings whose parcels, scale, and destinations are unknown" ], "settlers": [ "A secure Sullan veteran colony established after the 82 BCE punishment", "Veteran origin, number, household composition, arrival route, allotment extent, and population share remain unknown" ], "sources": [ "b45_appian_44f9258261", "b45_plutarch_9248c77a31", "b45_cicero_agraria_96a4f32d07", "b45_thein_e8215d80e4", "b45_santangelo_7cf450ad0c", "b45_palestrina_72e747cdfa", "b45_praeneste_place_333d792aae" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Praeneste / Palestrina — surrender, group-specific killing, confiscated holdings, and veteran colony", "lon": 12.8923075, "lat": 41.8394835 } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Rome — political context only, not a documented origin", "lon": 12.4964, "lat": 41.9028 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Praeneste is a representative city cue, not the surrender plain, killing site, confiscated territory, allotment grid, or ownership boundary. Rome supplies political and geographic context only. No route from Rome, veteran origin, survivor destination, whole-territory hatching, parcel grid, empty-city treatment, or second settlement phase is drawn.", "evidence": "Appian and Plutarch supply late and incompatible accounts of the punishment; Cicero supplies evidence for later ownership concentration and allotment regulation; Thein and Santangelo establish the colony while limiting its date, scale, land extent, and replacement claim; local history supplies context and Pleiades orientation only" }, { "id": "gr-roman-sulla-proscriptions-82-81", "name": "Sullan proscriptions: killing, banishment, and confiscated estates", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "public proscription lists; licensed and rewarded killing; penalties for concealment; banishment and flight; state confiscation and sale or transfer of houses and estates; civic disability imposed on descendants", "affectedLabel": "Named political targets, their households and helpers, heirs and descendants, and owners of confiscated houses and estates across Rome and Roman Italy; totals and local population shares unknown", "actorLabel": "Sulla's victorious regime as author of the system; officials, agents, informers, purchasers, political allies, local enemies, and opportunists as uneven implementers and beneficiaries", "dates": "82–81 BCE; 1 June 81 is the best-attested legal cutoff, not a universal end", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 10, "zoomFloor": 8, "viewPadding": 0.24, "reachFitCap": 28, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -82, "end": -81, "yearLabel": "82 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "story": "After Sulla's victory in 82 BCE, his regime published lists that stripped named opponents of legal protection. Killers and informers could be rewarded, concealment was penalized, and targeted people were killed, banished, or driven into flight. Houses and estates could be confiscated and sold or transferred, while civic disabilities extended to descendants.", "contested": "The ancient authors agree on the system but give incompatible list totals and sweeping descriptions that are not a death census or complete map of affected people and property. Cicero makes 1 June 81 BCE the best-attested legal cutoff, yet his Roscius case also alleges abuse after it; killing, pursuit, litigation, sales, exile, and disability did not all end on one demonstrated day. Ameria illustrates how dispossession could operate, but it is not representative of every estate. Community punishments and veteran colonies are separate local events, not parts of this national statistical unit.", "displaced": [ "Listed and accused people killed, banished, or driven into hiding and flight, without a recoverable common denominator or destination register", "Heirs and descendants whose civic position and claims to confiscated property were impaired, with varied later restoration and return outcomes" ], "settlers": [ "Purchasers and political beneficiaries of confiscated property, not a demonstrated incoming resident population", "Local soldier colonies and municipal land divisions are excluded and remain with separately bounded events" ], "sources": [ "b46_appian_44f9258261", "b46_plutarch_9248c77a31", "b46_cicero_1_5a7e90713f", "b46_cicero_2_1f8b5c0dd2", "b46_sallust_883745157c", "b46_dio_d05273885f", "b46_santangelo_7cf450ad0c", "b46_thein_acea1eb860", "b46_osgood_d9646e0022", "b46_rome_place_4ff5a1c46a", "b46_ameria_place_3c12be86d4" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Rome — policy and public-list hub; not the event boundary or a victim origin", "lon": 12.491258174554883, "lat": 41.8899769864849 }, { "name": "Ameria — one documented property-dispossession example; not a national sample", "lon": 12.413467, "lat": 42.557237 } ], "routeSegments": [], "placeGloss": "Rome marks the policy and public-list context; Ameria marks one concrete property dispute preserved by Cicero. Neither point defines the event's Italian extent. No victim route, exile destinations, complete locality layer, casualty symbol, estate inventory, cadastral polygon, beneficiary flow, municipal punishment, or veteran-settlement geography is drawn.", "evidence": "Appian and Plutarch provide later convergent accounts of lists, rewards, killing, banishment, confiscation, and descendant disability; Cicero provides a near-contemporary legal cutoff and Amerian property dispute; Sallust and Dio bound the disability's political afterlife; modern source criticism separates central authorization from distributed implementation and the national person-and-property system from local community punishments" }, { "id": "gr-roman-sulla-volaterrae-82-45", "name": "Volaterrae: legal confiscation without completed distribution", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "formal conversion of municipal land to Roman public land; attempted civic-status deprivation; incomplete distribution; continued local possession", "affectedLabel": "Volaterran citizens, possessors, and land users whose legal title and civic position were attacked while practical possession largely continued; individual allotments and losses remain unresolved", "actorLabel": "The Sullan Roman state as author of the civic and territorial penalty; proposed beneficiaries and later officials as uneven or renewed claimants", "dates": "Surrender c. 79 BCE; the Sullan measure's exact year is uncertain; title remained contested through 46/45 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 13, "zoomFloor": 9, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 30, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -79, "end": -79, "yearLabel": "c. 79 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "sources": [ "b47_vol_atticus_c813e1934d", "b47_vol_domo_8820734a62", "b47_vol_caecina_210b29ad31", "b47_vol_familiares_88f04effc5", "b47_vol_strabo_22253a803a", "b47_vol_livy_00bf604ef7", "b47_vol_granius_784332dfdf", "b47_vol_vervaet_9ebdbd86ae", "b47_vol_deniaux_55d53ea8fa", "b47_vol_santangelo_fdba3bce33", "b47_vol_thein_133122b22b", "b47_vol_terrenato_da4c63b13e", "b47_vol_place_3d1b535c8c" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Volaterrae / Volterra — legal title changed while practical possession continued", "lon": 10.861106, "lat": 43.401431 } ], "routeSegments": [], "story": "A Sullan measure made Volaterran land Roman public land and attempted to remove the community's Roman citizenship. Cicero describes the Volaterrans as still under arms at the time. Yet the intended division was not completed. Cicero later described Volaterran possessors as still on the land while laws and commissions repeatedly reopened its legal status.", "contested": "The secure taking was legal: municipal title became public. It was not a completed clearance or general veteran settlement. Citizenship deprivation did not durably succeed, and practical possession continued. Santangelo reads the distribution as unexecuted; Thein allows that limited individual allotments may have occurred. The c. 79 BCE stop anchors the surrender; the measure's exact year remains uncertain. Disputes in 63, 60, 59, and 46/45 BCE are the measure's afterlife, not one continuous event.", "displaced": [ "Volaterran citizens and possessors subjected to civic and legal land deprivation while remaining in practical possession", "Any individual land loss, allotment, departure, or return remains unknown" ], "settlers": [ "No completed incoming veteran or settler stream is demonstrated", "Possible limited individual allotments remain disputed and are not mapped" ], "placeGloss": "Volaterrae is a representative municipal cue, not the boundary of public land or a parcel map. Rome supplies political context only. No route, cadastral polygon, completed allotment, vacancy, resident-removal line, beneficiary flow, or later Caesarian phase is drawn.", "evidence": "Cicero directly attests public-title conversion, incomplete distribution, continued possession, and later legal contests; Granius, Strabo, Livy, and Vervaet bound the surrender context; modern studies disagree about limited allotments while preserving the absence of a completed general distribution; Pleiades supplies orientation only" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-roman-sulla-nola-veteran-allotment-81-78-bce", "name": "Sullan soldier land assignment and early colony at Nola", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "state-directed assignment of Nolan municipal land under Sullan survey limits and establishment of an early colonist community", "affectedLabel": "Nolan municipal land and unidentified prior holders or users; their parcels, continued possession, movement, and demographic share are unknown", "actorLabel": "Sullan authorities and military land recipients; CIL X 1236 independently attests an early colony and colonists but does not identify recipient origins or households", "dates": "c. 81–78 BCE; colony attested c. 80–70 BCE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 13, "zoomFloor": 9, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 30, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -80, "end": -80, "yearLabel": "c. 81–78 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "sources": [ "b47_nola_liber_94c750ee23", "b47_nola_cil_fe7f15fa3f", "b47_nola_granius_f624d8e057", "b47_nola_livy_a546fdf154", "b47_nola_thein_chapter_89e013f162", "b47_nola_thein_correction_6a65c173a2", "b47_nola_camodeca_a3369fa58c", "b47_nola_santangelo_f78693c1a7", "b47_nola_moretti_0522ab42f6", "b47_nola_ruffo_32d3b5cf63", "b47_nola_place_9f75f811b4" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Nola — reported Sullan land assignment and independently attested early colony", "lon": 14.528564, "lat": 40.925875 } ], "routeSegments": [], "story": "After Nola capitulated under threat of siege, the late Liber coloniarum reports that Nolan land had been assigned to a military recipient under Sullan survey limits. Separately, CIL X 1236 attests a colony and colonists at Nola in an early inscription dated by Camodeca to about 80–70 BCE.", "contested": "The assignment report and the inscription support different claims. The inscription independently establishes colonial status and colonists, but it does not itself prove the Sullan assignment, identify parcels, or date the land transfer. The c. 81–78 BCE program window is inferred rather than an exact assignment date; the internal −80 coordinate only orders the stop. Recipient numbers, origins, household form, prior landholders, resident movement, violence in implementation, and demographic balance remain unknown. Nola is separate from Suessula and from later imperial deductions.", "displaced": [ "Unidentified Nolan prior landholders or users whose municipal land was reported assigned", "Resident loss, retention, removal, destinations, and population share remain unknown" ], "settlers": [ "Military recipients reported by the Liber and colonists independently attested by CIL X 1236", "Recipient origin, number, households, parcels, arrival route, and demographic share remain unknown" ], "placeGloss": "Nola is a representative local land-and-colony cue, not a parcel, municipal boundary, or survey grid. Rome supplies political context only. No recipient origin, route, legion, resident destination, removal line, exact allotment, total-area wash, or replacement endpoint is drawn.", "evidence": "The Liber coloniarum reports assignment under Sullan limits; CIL X 1236 independently attests a colony and colonists in Camodeca's c. 80–70 BCE range; Granius and Livy bound the capitulation context; modern studies calibrate chronology and source dependence without supplying missing parcels or demographic outcomes; Pleiades supplies orientation only" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-roman-sulla-suessula-veteran-foundation-81-78-bce", "name": "Reported Sullan-law veteran land assignment at Suessula", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "reported foundation under Sullan law and assignment of Suessulan land to veterans using Sullan limits", "affectedLabel": "Unidentified Suessulan landholders or users potentially affected by the reported assignment; individual legal, residential, and demographic outcomes are unknown", "actorLabel": "Sullan authority and veterans named as recipients in one late technical report; numbers, origins, households, parcels, and realized settlement are unknown", "dates": "Sullan period, probably c. 82–78 BCE; exact year unknown", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 13, "zoomFloor": 9, "viewPadding": 0.2, "reachFitCap": 30, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": -80, "end": -80, "yearLabel": "c. 82–78 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "sources": [ "b47_sue_liber_489cc9e3af", "b47_sue_appian_966b7bac30", "b47_sue_livy_0a9e8d727c", "b47_sue_granius_f92e1f8f9d", "b47_sue_thein_8134f69ffb", "b47_sue_santangelo_aab997221c", "b47_sue_tm_7d6ea8004c", "b47_sue_cil_be3f7396a5", "b47_sue_archaeology_0a05461ca8", "b47_sue_place_b601026077" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Suessula — late report of Sullan-law foundation and veteran assignment", "lon": 14.398876, "lat": 40.990548 } ], "routeSegments": [], "story": "The late Liber coloniarum reports that Suessula was founded under Sullan law and that its land was assigned to veteran soldiers under Sullan limits. The report names a specific place, land, authority, and recipient class, but no contemporary local witness has been found.", "contested": "The Liber is an early- to mid-fourth-century CE compilation assembled from layered and uneven material. It directly reports the assignment, but modern repetitions, much later duoviri, regional survey geometry, and the general Sullan settlement program do not independently verify this local event. The exact year, parcels, land extent, prior holders, resident movement, implementation, recipient scale, realized settlement, and durability remain unknown. The c. 82–78 BCE range is an inferred Sullan window; the internal −80 coordinate only orders the stop. Suessula remains separate from nearby Nola.", "displaced": [ "Unidentified Suessulan landholders or users potentially affected by the reported veteran assignment", "Loss, retention, removal, destination, and return are not reported" ], "settlers": [ "Veterans named as land recipients in the Liber's report", "Their origin, number, household composition, parcels, realized residence, and demographic share remain unknown" ], "placeGloss": "Suessula is a representative site cue for one late land-assignment report, not an ager boundary or survey grid. Rome supplies political context only. No origin, route, resident fade, removal destination, exact parcel, total-area wash, or durable replacement endpoint is drawn.", "evidence": "The Liber coloniarum supplies the specific late report of Sullan-law foundation and veteran assignment; Appian, Livy, and Granius supply only general program context; Thein and Santangelo calibrate the report differently but add no independent local witness; later inscriptions and archaeology supply site context only; Pleiades supplies orientation only" }, { "id": "prospective-gr-hellenistic-tigranes-tigranokerta-forced-concentration", "name": "Tigranes II forces populations into Tigranokerta", "region": "Mediterranean", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "imperial conquest, source-city destruction or depopulation, forced migration, and compulsory concentration at a new capital", "affectedLabel": "Inhabitants compelled from Mazaka and other Cappadocian and Cilician or Greek communities; Adiabenian, Assyrian, and Gordyenian groups are also named, but totals and household composition are unknown", "actorLabel": "Tigranes II and the agents carrying out his concentration policy; distinct Armenian settlers are not treated as part of the compelled cohort", "dates": "Before 69 BCE; exact dates unknown", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 92, "zoomFloor": 36, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 118, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": -70, "end": -70, "yearLabel": "Before 69 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "orderingKeyOnly": true, "historicalDateKnown": false } ], "sources": [ "b48_tig_strabo_11_892d4d61ea", "b48_tig_strabo_12_888897557d", "b48_tig_plutarch_0f52758485", "b48_tig_cohen_5152f4aad7", "b48_tig_iranica_311d3e97a2", "b48_tig_mazaka_307916a93b" ], "story": "Strabo and Plutarch report that Tigranes II destroyed or depopulated source cities and compelled inhabitants from Cappadocia, Cilicia, and other regions to populate his new capital, Tigranokerta. The capital was still unfinished when Lucullus captured it in 69 BCE; later accounts report release and partial return.", "contested": "The transfer happened before 69 BCE, but the sources do not supply its year. The atlas uses −70 only to place this undated event before the capture; it is not a historical date. The ancient narratives partly overlap and are not treated as independent censuses. They do not recover all twelve Greek cities, a reliable number, population shares, household form, mortality, property allocation, legal status, labor assignment, exact routes, or a complete return rate. The location of Tigranokerta itself remains disputed.", "displaced": [ "Inhabitants compelled from Mazaka and other Cappadocian and Cilician or Greek communities into Mesopotamia", "Adiabenian, Assyrian, and Gordyenian groups named in the later narrative, without recoverable numbers or routes" ], "settlers": [ "Compelled populations used to populate Tigranes II's new capital", "A distinct Armenian settler stream mentioned in modern synthesis, not assumed to be coerced or merged with the affected cohort" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Mazaka — one securely named Cappadocian source community", "lon": 35.4743607, "lat": 38.72640055, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, { "name": "Cilicia — broad source region; individual cities and shares unknown", "lon": 34.72, "lat": 36.78, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Tigranokerta region — exact site disputed", "lon": 41.25, "lat": 37.95, "suppressMarker": true } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Mazaka — one securely named Cappadocian source community", "lon": 35.4743607, "lat": 38.72640055, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Tigranokerta region — exact site disputed", "lon": 41.25, "lat": 37.95, "suppressMarker": true }, "kind": "forced" }, { "from": { "name": "Cilicia — broad source region; individual cities and shares unknown", "lon": 34.72, "lat": 36.78, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Tigranokerta region — exact site disputed", "lon": 41.25, "lat": 37.95, "suppressMarker": true }, "kind": "forced" } ], "caseGuides": [ { "label": "TIGRANOKERTA REGION · EXACT SITE DISPUTED", "labelLines": [ "TIGRANOKERTA REGION", "EXACT SITE DISPUTED" ], "targets": [ "Tigranokerta region — exact site disputed" ], "labelSide": "below" } ], "placeGloss": "Mazaka and Cilicia are two representative source directions, not a complete city list or measured population fan. Both segmented lines are schematic and terminate in a labelled uncertainty zone rather than a claimed capital point. The destination display center is editorial, and the later return is described rather than mapped.", "evidence": "Strabo and Plutarch provide two ancient narrative attestations with partly overlapping content for compulsory concentration, source-city loss, and later release; Cohen calibrates the disputed site and ancient number claim; Iranica separates forcible transfer from a distinct Armenian settler stream; Pleiades supplies the Mazaka orientation point only" }, { "id": "late-antique-sasanian-hatra-depopulation", "name": "Sasanian conquest and permanent depopulation of Hatra", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "imperial conquest, resident removal and depopulation, deportation reported, and permanent urban abandonment", "affectedLabel": "Hatra's resident urban community; the shares carried off, killed, escaped, or otherwise absent are unknown", "actorLabel": "Sasanian forces under Ardashir I; Shapur was co-regent, but his operational role is not established", "dates": "240–241 CE; exact year uncertain", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 66, "zoomFloor": 36, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 118, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": 240, "end": 241, "yearLabel": "240–241 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "sources": [ "b48_hatra_history_1805479bc5", "b48_hatra_deportations_23720a7b59", "b48_hatra_ardashir_8a7d1e261e", "b48_hatra_shapur_eb5cb5e280", "b48_hatra_unesco_24b8b2d5d8" ], "story": "Sasanian forces under Ardashir I conquered Hatra in 240 or 241 CE. Encyclopaedia Iranica's deportation survey reports that inhabitants were carried off, while its Hatra synthesis connects the conquest to the permanent abandonment of the inhabited city.", "contested": "The 240–241 label is uncertainty about the year, not a two-year removal sequence. Shapur was co-regent, but the evidence reviewed here does not establish his operational command. The record cannot divide Hatra's residents among captivity, flight, death, or other absence, and it supplies no total, destination, route, household form, labor role, legal status, property outcome, return policy, or successor population. Permanent abandonment describes the resident city, not every individual's fate or an empty wider landscape.", "displaced": [ "Hatra's resident urban community, which did not reconstitute at the city", "Inhabitants reported carried off, with destination, distance, and individual fates unknown" ], "settlers": [ "Sasanian forces as conquerors rather than a demonstrated incoming resident population", "No successor settlement or imported labor stream is evidenced at Hatra" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Hatra — conquered and permanently abandoned as an inhabited city", "lon": 42.7183306, "lat": 35.5880611 } ], "routeSegments": [], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Upper Mesopotamia — regional orientation only", "lon": 43.4, "lat": 35.2 } ], "placeGloss": "The UNESCO coordinate marks the archaeological city site, not a removal extent. The single cue changes from inhabited city to permanent abandonment; no route, destination, total-population fade, massacre symbol, destruction polygon, successor settlement, or labor stream is drawn.", "evidence": "Iranica's Hatra synthesis supports the 240–241 conquest and permanent abandonment; its deportation survey reports carried-off inhabitants without proving total deportation; the Ardashir and Shapur studies calibrate ruler and co-regency roles; UNESCO supplies the archaeological-site point only" }, { "id": "late-antique-sasanian-shapur-antioch-captivity", "name": "Shapur I captures Antioch and takes residents captive", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "imperial conquest, reported killing, captivity and deportation, and possible resettlement within the Sasanian realm", "affectedLabel": "Antioch residents reported killed or carried into captivity during Shapur I's first capture; the number, share, destinations, and return outcomes are unknown", "actorLabel": "Sasanian imperial forces under Shapur I", "dates": "253 or 256 CE; exact year disputed", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 104, "zoomFloor": 36, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 118, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 253, "end": 253, "yearLabel": "253 or 256 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "orderingKeyOnly": true, "historicalDateDisputed": [ 253, 256 ] } ], "sources": [ "b48_ant_shapur_59c6f818c7", "b48_ant_zosimus_9a42a0e149", "b48_ant_antioch_f9fbc7787f", "b48_ant_hormozd_6eabb57f22", "b48_ant_deportations_f48e0d63e4", "b48_ant_gondeshapur_b91ad0c9c2", "b48_ant_edwell_f5f4a8d881", "b48_ant_place_41b757095e" ], "story": "During Shapur I's first capture of Antioch, later accounts report killing among the residents and the removal of many people into captivity. Shapur's inscription places the conquest within a wider imperial campaign and captive-transfer program, but the first-capture Antiochenes cannot be assigned to particular Sasanian settlements or works.", "contested": "Specialist syntheses disagree on whether this capture occurred in 253 or 256 CE; the atlas uses 253 only to order a single disputed-year event, not to settle the question. Shapur's inscription is contemporary royal self-report for the campaign, while Zosimus and the Chronicle of Seert tradition are later accounts for resident killing and captivity. Their language is not a census. Antioch recovered. The sources do not establish a reliable number or share, household form, exact route, destination allocation, legal status, specific labor role, movement restriction, travel mortality, return policy, or durable family settlement for this cohort. The separate Antioch captures of 260 and 540 remain outside this event.", "displaced": [ "Antioch residents whom later accounts report killed or carried into captivity during the first capture", "A many-person captive cohort whose scale, composition, allocation, and individual outcomes are unknown" ], "settlers": [ "Sasanian forces as captors rather than a demonstrated successor population at Antioch", "Possible resettlement somewhere within a broader imperial system; no particular destination or labor assignment is established for this cohort" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Antioch on the Orontes — first capture, reported killing, and captivity", "lon": 36.183214, "lat": 36.2225515, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Antioch on the Orontes — first capture, reported killing, and captivity", "lon": 36.183214, "lat": 36.2225515 }, { "name": "Reported Sasanian destination regions — this cohort's allocation unknown", "lon": 47, "lat": 32.5, "suppressMarker": true } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Antioch on the Orontes — first capture, reported killing, and captivity", "lon": 36.183214, "lat": 36.2225515 }, "to": { "name": "Reported Sasanian destination regions — this cohort's allocation unknown", "lon": 47, "lat": 32.5, "suppressMarker": true }, "kind": "custody" } ], "caseGuides": [ { "label": "REPORTED SASANIAN DESTINATION REGIONS · THIS COHORT'S ALLOCATION UNKNOWN", "labelLines": [ "REPORTED SASANIAN", "DESTINATION REGIONS", "THIS COHORT'S ALLOCATION", "UNKNOWN" ], "targets": [ "Reported Sasanian destination regions — this cohort's allocation unknown" ], "labelSide": "above" } ], "placeGloss": "Antioch uses the current Pleiades representative point. The muted segmented custody line dissolves conceptually into a broad labelled uncertainty area and has no destination marker. It does not identify Gondeshapur, assign people among regions, measure the cohort, extinguish Antioch, or combine the separate 260 and 540 captures.", "evidence": "Shapur's contemporary royal inscription and specialist synthesis place the conquest within the campaign; Zosimus and the Chronicle of Seert tradition are later reports of killing and captivity; specialist studies preserve the 253/256 dispute and limit destination and labor claims to the wider Sasanian system; Pleiades supplies the Antioch point only" }, { "id": "late-antique-sasanian-shapur-dura-europos-deportation", "name": "Shapur I's siege, deportation, and abandonment of Dura-Europos", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "imperial siege, community deportation reported by specialist synthesis, and permanent urban abandonment", "affectedLabel": "Dura-Europos's resident community; the shares deported, killed, escaped, or otherwise absent are unknown", "actorLabel": "Sasanian imperial forces under Shapur I", "dates": "c. 256 CE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 66, "zoomFloor": 36, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 132, "includeOriginsInFrame": false, "periods": [ { "start": 256, "end": 256, "yearLabel": "c. 256 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "historicalDateApproximate": true, "dateSensitivity": [ 256, 257 ] } ], "sources": [ "b49_dura_leriche_255c67626f", "b49_dura_james_8bf29ab570", "b49_dura_deportations_eec21bd980", "b49_dura_place_61939f4d53" ], "story": "Around 256 CE, Shapur I's forces captured Dura-Europos after a violent siege. Pierre Leriche's specialist synthesis reports that the population was deported, and the inhabited city was permanently abandoned.", "contested": "The final siege is usually dated around 256, though adjacent-year uncertainty remains. Siege archaeology independently documents violent conquest and the city's end, but it is not a person-by-person deportee census. The evidence does not recover how residents divided among deportation, death, escape, or other absence, and it supplies no destination, route, number, household composition, property process, labor assignment, return policy, or successor population.", "displaced": [ "Dura-Europos's resident urban community, whose inhabited city did not reconstitute", "A population reported deported in specialist synthesis, with individual fates and destination unknown" ], "settlers": [ "Sasanian forces as conquerors rather than a demonstrated incoming resident population", "No successor settlement or destination community is assigned to this event" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Dura-Europos — final siege and permanent urban abandonment", "lon": 40.7298542823, "lat": 34.7478848156 } ], "routeSegments": [], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Middle Euphrates — regional orientation only", "lon": 40.9, "lat": 35.4 } ], "placeGloss": "The Pleiades point is a representative cue for Dura-Europos, not a capture location or event footprint. The event is shown without an arrow because no destination or path is recorded.", "evidence": "Leriche's specialist synthesis reports population deportation and the end of the town; James's archaeology supports the violent final siege around 256 but not a civilian census; the deportation survey supplies wider context; Pleiades supplies orientation only" }, { "id": "late-antique-sasanian-shapur-third-campaign-provincials", "name": "Shapur I deports and resettles Roman provincials after his third campaign", "region": "Middle East & North Africa / Western Asia", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "imperial conquest, aggregate forced removal across Roman provinces, and state-directed distributed resettlement", "affectedLabel": "Roman provincial captives and other people removed after the 260 campaign, including civilians in specialist interpretation; city-level numbers, shares, and household composition are unknown", "actorLabel": "Shapur I, Sasanian campaign forces, and royal authorities responsible for distributing captives within the empire", "dates": "260 CE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 136, "zoomFloor": 36, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 132, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 260, "end": 260, "yearLabel": "260 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "sources": [ "b49_third_skz_af4c159d00", "b49_third_shapur_fb7b32fbc1", "b49_third_edwell_2b3139a6cd", "b49_third_deportations_7423df454d" ], "story": "Shapur I's royal inscription describes his 260 campaign, lists thirty-six captured towns and districts, and then says that people from the Roman Empire were carried away and settled in Persis, Parthia, Khuzistan, Asoristan, and other royal domains.", "contested": "The inscription is a contemporary royal self-report, not a civilian census or route record. It does not say that every resident of all thirty-six places was removed, identify which places supplied captives, pair any source with a destination, or describe identical outcomes in every city. Its figure of 70,000 refers to Valerian's military force and is not used as a civilian or deportee count. The atlas treats the campaign-level removal and distribution as one event because the surviving evidence cannot support thirty-six independently measured population histories.", "displaced": [ "Roman provincial captives and other people removed in the campaign aftermath", "People including civilians in specialist interpretation, without recoverable city-level totals, proportions, or allocations" ], "settlers": [ "Transported Roman people whom the royal inscription says were settled in named Sasanian regions", "Sasanian authorities directing a distributed settlement program rather than annexing the listed Roman provinces" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Roman Syria — broad campaign source region", "lon": 36.2, "lat": 36.2, "suppressMarker": true }, { "name": "Cilicia — broad campaign source region", "lon": 34.6, "lat": 36.8, "suppressMarker": true }, { "name": "Cappadocia — broad campaign source region", "lon": 35.5, "lat": 38.7, "suppressMarker": true }, { "name": "Asoristan — named receiving region; extent schematic", "lon": 44.6, "lat": 33.1, "suppressMarker": true }, { "name": "Khuzistan — named receiving region; extent schematic", "lon": 48.6, "lat": 31.5, "suppressMarker": true }, { "name": "Persis — named receiving region; extent schematic", "lon": 52.8, "lat": 29.4, "suppressMarker": true }, { "name": "Parthia — named receiving region; extent schematic", "lon": 57, "lat": 36.2, "suppressMarker": true } ], "routeSegments": [], "caseGuides": [ { "label": "ROMAN CAMPAIGN REGIONS · SOURCE SHARES UNKNOWN", "labelLines": [ "ROMAN CAMPAIGN REGIONS", "SOURCE SHARES UNKNOWN" ], "targets": [ "Roman Syria — broad campaign source region", "Cilicia — broad campaign source region", "Cappadocia — broad campaign source region" ], "labelSide": "below" }, { "label": "BROAD SASANIAN RESETTLEMENT REGIONS · INDIVIDUAL ALLOCATIONS UNKNOWN", "labelLines": [ "BROAD SASANIAN", "RESETTLEMENT REGIONS", "INDIVIDUAL ALLOCATIONS", "UNKNOWN" ], "targets": [ "Asoristan — named receiving region; extent schematic", "Khuzistan — named receiving region; extent schematic", "Persis — named receiving region; extent schematic", "Parthia — named receiving region; extent schematic" ], "labelSide": "below" } ], "cameraContext": [ { "name": "Eastern Roman–Sasanian frontier — orientation only", "lon": 42, "lat": 35 } ], "placeGloss": "The two dashed guide areas are editorial orientation devices, not reconstructed borders or population extents. No routes are drawn because the inscription does not pair a source city with a receiving region. The thirty-six-place list contributes one event weight, not thirty-six.", "evidence": "Shapur's trilingual royal inscription supplies the campaign list and aggregate removal-and-settlement statement; modern syntheses calibrate campaign purpose and wider captive systems without adding city-level civilian profiles or independent destination allocations" }, { "id": "late-antique-sasanian-antioch-weh-antioch", "name": "Khosrow I deports Antiochenes to Weh-Antioch-Khosrow", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "partial", "mechanism": "imperial sack, forced long-range transfer, construction of a receiving city, and state-directed resettlement under direct royal authority", "affectedLabel": "Antiochene captives transported in 540; the number, resident share, household composition, and cohort-wide work status are unknown", "actorLabel": "Sasanian forces and royal authorities under Khosrow I; selected transported charioteers and musicians are named within the wider captive cohort", "dates": "540 CE", "extent": "regional", "viewWidth": 112, "zoomFloor": 36, "viewPadding": 0.18, "reachFitCap": 132, "includeOriginsInFrame": true, "periods": [ { "start": 540, "end": 540, "yearLabel": "540 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "sources": [ "b49_weh_procopius_5fec21f633", "b49_weh_ctesiphon_a2d609e93f", "b49_weh_madaen_ada34fa2bd", "b49_weh_antioch_90124d82c5", "b49_weh_deportations_ded002a0f8", "b49_weh_borsch_e657b3d899", "b49_weh_place_805427051e" ], "story": "After Khosrow I sacked Antioch in 540, Procopius reports that Antiochene captives were settled in a purpose-built city near Ctesiphon. The new community received familiar urban amenities, public provisioning, and direct royal status; the narrative also names transported charioteers and musicians.", "contested": "The exact site of Weh-Antioch-Khosrow remains unresolved, and the line on the map shows only the known source-to-region direction, not a recovered itinerary. Procopius's language is a near-contemporary narrative rather than a census: it does not establish how many Antiochenes were taken, whether the cohort contained complete households, or whether occupational transfer characterized everyone. A later estimate of the receiving city's population is not a 540 deportee count. Antioch suffered severe damage but survived and rebuilt; the atlas does not erase it or infer that the transported cohort returned.", "displaced": [ "Antiochene captives forcibly transported toward the Ctesiphon metropolitan region in 540", "Selected charioteers and musicians explicitly named as occupational transfers, without a cohort-wide labor measure" ], "settlers": [ "The transported Antiochene community settled in Khosrow's purpose-built receiving city", "Royal officials provisioning and directly administering the new community" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Antioch on the Orontes — sacked in 540 but later rebuilt", "lon": 36.183214, "lat": 36.2225515, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Antioch on the Orontes — sacked in 540 but later rebuilt", "lon": 36.183214, "lat": 36.2225515 }, { "name": "Weh-Antioch-Khosrow — exact site unresolved", "lon": 44.6, "lat": 33.05, "suppressMarker": true } ], "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Antioch on the Orontes — sacked in 540 but later rebuilt", "lon": 36.183214, "lat": 36.2225515, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" }, "to": { "name": "Weh-Antioch-Khosrow — exact site unresolved", "lon": 44.6, "lat": 33.05, "suppressMarker": true }, "kind": "custody" } ], "caseGuides": [ { "label": "WEH-ANTIOCH-KHOSROW · EXACT SITE UNRESOLVED", "labelLines": [ "WEH-ANTIOCH-KHOSROW", "EXACT SITE UNRESOLVED" ], "targets": [ "Weh-Antioch-Khosrow — exact site unresolved" ], "labelSide": "above" } ], "placeGloss": "Antioch's Pleiades point is a representative site cue. The segmented line records a forced source-to-region direction only and ends in a labelled uncertainty zone without a destination marker; it is not a reconstructed road, itinerary, or exact city coordinate.", "evidence": "Procopius 2.14 reports the purpose-built receiving city, settlement of Antiochene captives, amenities, selected occupational transfers, and direct royal status; Iranica locates the unexcavated city only within the Ctesiphon region and preserves its later continuity; Borsch calibrates Antioch's destruction and survival; Pleiades supplies source-city orientation only" }, { "id": "ancient-neo-assyrian-til-karme-captive-resettlement-738", "name": "Captives placed at Tīl-karme", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "Conventionally 738 BCE; actual transfer date uncertain", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": -738, "end": -738, "yearLabel": "738 BCE (conventional)", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "affectedLabel": "A reported 555 captives from Bīt-Sangibūti", "actorLabel": "Tiglath-pileser III’s Assyrian state; the captive cohort", "displaced": [ "A reported 555 captives from Bīt-Sangibūti" ], "settlers": [ "Tiglath-pileser III’s Assyrian state; the same captive cohort placed at Tīl-karme" ], "evidence": "An edited, partly restored royal inscription; RINAP 1, text 14.8b–10a and commentary", "story": "The royal account reports that 555 captives were placed at Tīl-karme, counted among Assyria's inhabitants and assigned corvée obligations. The people removed at the origin and settled at the destination are one cohort.", "contested": "The account does not establish that receiving residents were cleared out, how large a share of the destination's population the captives formed, or how long their descendants remained. The settlement's exact location is uncertain. In the profile, zero for imported unfree labor means no distinct imported labor stream is established; it does not mean the captives were free.", "sources": [ "v7_til_karme_rinap1" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "Tīl-karme’s exact location is uncertain. No settlement point, transfer route or territorial boundary is plotted." }, { "id": "modern-japanese-american-forced-removal", "name": "Forced removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans", "region": "North America", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "1942–1946; forced removal and the WRA camp system", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1942, "end": 1946, "yearLabel": "1942–1946", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1942, "end": 1942, "dateLabel": "February 19, 1942", "label": "Executive Order 9066 authorizes military exclusion from designated areas." }, { "start": 1945, "end": 1945, "dateLabel": "January 2, 1945", "label": "Lifting of West Coast exclusion orders takes effect." }, { "start": 1945, "end": 1945, "dateLabel": "September 4, 1945", "label": "Western Defense Command revokes all remaining restrictions against Japanese Americans." }, { "start": 1945, "end": 1945, "dateLabel": "November 21, 1945", "label": "Manzanar closes." }, { "start": 1946, "end": 1946, "dateLabel": "March 20, 1946", "label": "Tule Lake closes; all ten WRA centers are now closed." } ] } ], "displaced": [ "Japanese American citizens and residents removed from their West Coast homes" ], "settlers": [ "US federal government, military authorities and War Relocation Authority (WRA)" ], "evidence": "Executive Order 9066; National Archives, USHMM and National Park Service historical accounts", "story": "In 1942, Executive Order 9066 authorized military exclusion from designated areas. Its implementation forced people of Japanese ancestry, including US citizens, from their West Coast homes. About 120,000 people were removed and incarcerated. Many lost homes, farms, businesses or possessions. West Coast exclusion orders were lifted effective January 2, 1945, but incarceration continued. Tule Lake, the last of the ten WRA centers, closed on March 20, 1946. Release and permission to return did not restore lost property.", "contested": "The 1946 endpoint covers the WRA camp system, not every wartime detention institution. Property and community losses continued afterward. Manzanar and Tule Lake are two selected destinations within this single event; their operating dates differed.", "note": "The public chronology includes the final WRA camp closure in 1946. The frozen statistical record retains 1942–1945.", "placeGloss": "The map marks two selected WRA destinations using present-day historic-site reference points: Manzanar and the Tule Lake visitor-center area. These points do not show camp boundaries, the full detention network, West Coast exclusion-zone boundaries or individual transfer routes.", "sources": [ "v7_japanese_nara_9066", "v7_japanese_ushmm_relocation", "v7_japanese_nps_tule_timeline", "v7_japanese_nps_manzanar_location", "v7_japanese_nps_tule_location", "v7_japanese_nps_manzanar_history" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Manzanar — selected WRA destination", "lon": -118.155, "lat": 36.726 }, { "name": "Tule Lake — selected WRA destination", "lon": -121.377, "lat": 41.887 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped" }, { "id": "af-kariba-gwembe-tonga-resettlement", "name": "Kariba Dam and Gwembe Tonga resettlement", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "Late 1950s; Scudder describes removals from late 1957 through 1958", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1956, "end": 1959, "yearLabel": "Late 1950s", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Gwembe Tonga communities in the Middle Zambezi Valley" ], "settlers": [ "Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, colonial administrations and the Kariba hydroelectric project" ], "evidence": "Longitudinal field research, Scudder’s retrospective account and project-location documentation", "story": "Construction of Kariba Dam brought compulsory resettlement to roughly 57,000 Gwembe Tonga people. Scudder dates the beginning of removals to late 1957, continuing through 1958. Around 6,000 people were moved to Lusitu downstream from the dam, in what is now Zambia. There, resettled Tonga encountered Goba residents’ concerns about land use and conflicts over ritual authority. Longitudinal research in southern Zambia records increasing environmental and political uncertainty and opportunistic use of resources.", "contested": "The approximate 57,000 total is the overall resettlement scale, not the size of the village study. The local receiving experiences and southern Zambia research do not establish uniform outcomes for communities on both banks.", "note": "The frozen statistical record retains 1956–1959. Scudder’s 1956–1957 dates refer to fieldwork before resettlement; his account dates removals to late 1957–1958. The full interval for both banks is not established by these passages.", "placeGloss": "The point marks the modern Kariba hydroelectric scheme as a project reference. It does not mark a cleared village, reservoir boundary or receiving settlement. Lusitu was a receiving region below Kariba Gorge toward Chirundu; it is described here without a village pin or transfer route.", "sources": [ "v7_kariba_cliggett_2007", "v7_kariba_caltech_scudder", "v7_kariba_scudder_oral_history", "v7_kariba_zra_project_location", "v7_kariba_scudder_2005_geography" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Kariba hydroelectric scheme — modern project reference", "lon": 28.767, "lat": -16.517 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped" }, { "id": "mena-safavid-armenian-deportation-aras-new-julfa-1604-1605", "name": "Armenian deportation and the founding of New Julfa", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "1604–1605", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1604, "end": 1605, "yearLabel": "1604–1605", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Armenian residents of Julfa and the wider Aras–Ararat region" ], "settlers": [ "Shah Abbas I and Safavid troops", "Julfan deportees settled at New Julfa" ], "evidence": "Two Encyclopaedia Iranica historical syntheses; a heritage submission supplies the modern reference point", "story": "In 1604, Shah Abbas I ordered Armenian communities removed during his retreat before an Ottoman counter-offensive. Safavid troops destroyed Julfa and forced its inhabitants across the Aras. Deportees were dispersed to several parts of Iran. The Julfan mercantile community wintered in Tabriz and began building New Julfa near Isfahan in early summer 1605. Ghougassian connects this settlement to the shah’s plan to bring experienced silk merchants under royal control. Julfan merchants received transport and could take movable possessions; other deportees faced harsh winter journeys.", "contested": "The accounts give population estimates for different groups. The passages cited here do not establish complete household destinations or losses along the way.", "note": "Ghougassian attributes 21 October–19 November 1604 to Aṙakʽel of Tabriz’s account of the deportation. The Julfan community’s arrival in early summer 1605 is distinct from the wider dispersal.", "placeGloss": "The point marks the monastery of St. Amenaprkich (New Julfa Vank), a modern reference for New Julfa. It does not identify a 1605 camp, an Aras crossing or every deportee destination.", "sources": [ "v7_armenian_iranica_deportations", "v7_armenian_ghougassian_julfa", "v7_armenian_new_julfa_reference" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "New Julfa Vank — modern monastery reference", "lat": 32.635, "lon": 51.655833 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped" }, { "id": "am-suriname-indian-indenture-1873-1916", "name": "British-Indian contract workers in Suriname", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "1873–1916", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1873, "end": 1916, "yearLabel": "1873–1916", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "British-Indian (Hindostani) workers recruited for Suriname plantations" ], "settlers": [ "Suriname colonial government; plantation owners and managers; recruited British-Indian workers" ], "evidence": "Nationaal Archief’s guide to immigration registers and Hoefte’s scholarly account (accessible extract)", "story": "From 1873 to 1916, British-Indian workers came to Suriname under plantation labor contracts. The colonial government organized recruitment and contracting; plantation owners or managers hired the workers. Hoefte describes the British-Indian arrivals aboard the Lalla Rookh on 5 June 1873 as having signed five-year contracts before their plantation assignments were known. Their arrival came shortly before the end of a ten-year state-supervised labor transition following slavery’s abolition in 1863. Contracts and local ordinances bound workers’ labor to their employers. Penal sanctions let employers bring criminal charges for alleged neglect of duty or refusal to work. The archive guide identifies fields for re-contracting, return journeys and parcel ownership.", "contested": "Recruitment and coercive contract enforcement are distinct: these passages do not establish that every worker was kidnapped or forcibly embarked. Index entries are not a direct count of unique migrants: the guide warns of missing records and duplicates. Individual contract outcomes and the reach of penal enforcement across the whole period remain unresolved here.", "note": "The dates bound this British-Indian contract-migration cohort; Chinese and Javanese migration streams are separate. The guide records returns, further contracts and parcel ownership without establishing a uniform outcome for all workers.", "placeGloss": "Paramaribo is the arrival city named in the archive guide. The point uses UNESCO’s historic-inner-city coordinate as a city reference, not a landing dock or plantation. Hoefte places the Lalla Rookh’s docking at Fort Nieuw Amsterdam, which is not plotted here. No common plantation destination or shipping route is reconstructed.", "sources": [ "v7_suriname_na_hindostani", "v7_suriname_hoefte_passage_1998", "v7_suriname_unesco_paramaribo_reference" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Paramaribo — arrival-city reference", "lon": -55.15, "lat": 5.826 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped" }, { "id": "prospective-bwindi-mgahinga-national-park-eviction", "name": "Batwa eviction from Bwindi and Mgahinga forests", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "1991; park gazettement and Batwa eviction", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1991, "end": 1991, "yearLabel": "1991", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Batwa communities living in and using the Bwindi and Mgahinga forests in southwestern Uganda" ], "settlers": [ "Ugandan government and Uganda National Parks authorities" ], "evidence": "Batwa-led interviews conducted in 2022; a historical literature review; official park-reference records", "story": "In 1991, Uganda established Bwindi and Mgahinga national parks and forcibly evicted Batwa residents from ancestral forest land. Mukasa’s review describes removal without prior consultation, compensation or a resettlement plan. A Batwa-led study interviewed 19 adults in Kanungu district in August–November 2022. Participants described beatings and eviction at gunpoint, loss of access to forest foods, medicines and ancestral graves, and living on other people’s land. Participants also described wanting to return to the forest and teach their children about their culture.", "contested": "The 19 interviews are a purposive study sample, not the total evicted population or a uniform eyewitness cohort: 11 participants had lived in the forest as adults, five as young people, and three were born after eviction. Their accounts do not establish outcomes or rates for every affected Batwa community. Mukasa reports that a conservation fund began operating in 1995 and describes compensation favoring cultivators; his review does not supply an individual compensation ledger. The absence of compensation at removal does not mean that no later assistance or compensation occurred.", "note": "Mukasa’s Table 1 dates Mgahinga’s park gazettement to May 1991 and Bwindi’s to a resolution on 13 August 1991. These are source-reported institutional dates, not a shared eviction day for every household. Echuya Forest Reserve is outside this case.", "placeGloss": "The two points identify the parks using later official reference coordinates. They do not mark individual cleared homes, a verified 1991 clearance boundary or receiving settlements. No household removal route is shown.", "sources": [ "v7_batwa_kokunda_2023", "v7_batwa_mukasa_2012", "v7_batwa_bwindi_reference", "v7_batwa_mgahinga_reference" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Bwindi Impenetrable National Park — later park reference", "lon": 29.692, "lat": -1.047 }, { "name": "Mgahinga Gorilla National Park — 2007 park reference", "lon": 29.65, "lat": -1.383333 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped" }, { "id": "new-zealand-ngati-toa-kapiti-cook-strait-conquests", "name": "Ngāti Toa migration and capture of Kāpiti", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "core", "extent": "island", "dates": "1822–1824; Kāpiti and the Cook Strait base", "periods": [ { "start": 1822, "end": 1824, "yearLabel": "1822–1824", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "internalSequence": [ { "start": 1822, "end": 1822, "dateLabel": "1822", "label": "Ngāti Toa migrate south from Taranaki toward Kāpiti." }, { "start": 1824, "end": 1824, "dateLabel": "1824", "label": "Ngāti Toa defeat an attacking fleet at Waiorua." } ] } ], "displaced": [ "Muaūpoko of Kāpiti; resident outcomes are not quantified" ], "settlers": [ "Ngāti Toa, including Te Rauparaha and Te Pēhi Kupe; some Te Āti Awa allies" ], "evidence": "Te Ara’s historical account of migration, island capture and battles", "story": "In 1822, Ngāti Toa moved south from Taranaki toward Kāpiti with some Te Āti Awa allies. Te Pēhi Kupe captured Kāpiti Island from Muaūpoko, and Ngāti Toa established themselves there. The coast offered space and access to European trade. Fighting culminated at Waiorua in 1824, when Ngāti Toa defeated an attacking fleet from several tribal groups.", "contested": "Te Ara does not give household totals, resident removal shares or the exact capture date. Later South Island campaigns are excluded. The profile’s labor zero concerns a distinct imported labor population; it does not establish the absence of captivity in these wars.", "note": "Before the southward migration, Te Ara describes Te Rauparaha’s defeat and expulsion from Kāwhia in 1821, followed by negotiated safe passage. Departure under pressure preceded Ngāti Toa’s capture and settlement of Kāpiti.", "placeGloss": "The point uses Tūteremoana, Kāpiti Island’s highest point, as a modern island reference. It does not locate a pā, landing site or battlefield, or outline the territory taken. Taranaki and Kāwhia are described without origin pins or migration routes.", "sources": [ "v7_ngati_toa_teara_overview", "v7_ngati_toa_teara_allies", "v7_ngati_toa_linz_tuteremoana" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Kāpiti Island — Tūteremoana reference", "lon": 174.915, "lat": -40.848 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped" }, { "id": "qin-rang-convict-placement-281-bce", "name": "Qin relocates amnestied convicts to Rang", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "281 BCE (King Zhaoxiang, year 26); relocation duration unknown", "periods": [ { "start": -281, "end": -281, "yearLabel": "281 BCE; regnal year 26", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Amnestied convicted people moved to Rang; their origins are unrecorded" ], "settlers": [ "Qin authorities under King Zhaoxiang; the same amnestied cohort" ], "evidence": "Shiji 5’s annual notice, read with modern studies of Qin resettlement", "story": "In King Zhaoxiang’s twenty-sixth year, conventionally 281 BCE, Qin amnestied convicted people and moved them to Rang. The notice records no headcount or places of origin. Barbieri-Low interprets this penal-amnesty formula as forced relocation, while leaving individual participation uncertain. Rang’s annual entry does not report a conquest or the expulsion of its existing residents.", "contested": "It is unclear whether individuals volunteered for amnesty or were selected by officials. Their household composition, later work, settlement duration and receiving residents’ fate are unmeasured. The profile’s imported-labor value is unknown: convict status alone does not establish a distinct imported labor population.", "note": "Miyake’s English discussion dates Rang to year 27 (280 BCE), conflicting with the year 26 clause quoted in his footnote. The annual notice does not tell us how long the relocation took.", "sources": [ "v7_qin_rang_shiji5", "v7_qin_rang_barbieri_low", "v7_qin_rang_miyake" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "Rang is named in the annal, but the relocation’s location has not been established precisely enough to plot here. No origin, destination, route or territorial boundary is shown." }, { "id": "medieval-carolingian-nordalbingian-saxon-removal", "name": "Nordalbingian Saxon removal, Obodrite land grant and reversal", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "804–c. 811 CE; removal, brief land grant and reported return", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 804, "end": 811, "yearLabel": "804–c. 811 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Nordalbingian Saxon families north of the lower Elbe" ], "settlers": [ "Charlemagne’s Carolingian state and its armies; Obodrite recipients of the land grant" ], "evidence": "Royal Frankish Annals; Einhard’s account from Charlemagne’s court; a later Hamburg historical essay", "story": "In 804, the Royal Frankish Annals report that Charlemagne’s army removed Saxons living beyond the Elbe and in Wigmodia, together with women and children, into Francia. The same entry records a grant of the districts beyond the Elbe to the Obodrites. This case follows the Nordalbingian part of that removal and land transfer. Einhard describes people from the Elbe being dispersed with their families among settlements in Gaul and Germany. The arrangement north of the Elbe was short-lived: subsequent annals describe Danish attacks on the Obodrites and renewed Frankish frontier fortification. Oliver Struck’s historical essay on the University of Hamburg website places the expelled Nordalbingians’ return about seven years after their removal.", "contested": "Einhard praises Charlemagne and presents Saxon resistance through the conqueror’s perspective. His reported ten thousand, accompanied by wives and children, is not a verified household census for the Nordalbingian component in 804. The land grant establishes a political beneficiary; it does not by itself establish how many Obodrite families moved in or a complete replacement of the prior population. The approximately 811 return rests here on Struck’s later synthesis, not a household return register or an explicit return statement in the annal passages inspected.", "note": "The 804 removal and grant, brief Obodrite phase and qualified return form one event. The wider Saxon wars, earlier removals and the separate removal of Reric’s merchants are outside this case. Neither a common return day nor return by every displaced family is established.", "placeGloss": "Nordalbingia and the lower Elbe provide regional context. Exact cleared homes, Obodrite receiving settlements, dispersed placements in Francia and individual return routes are not located here.", "sources": [ "v7_saxon_annals_804", "v7_saxon_annals_frontier", "v7_saxon_einhard", "v7_saxon_struck" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The sources describe regions and dispersed populations. No household settlement point, transfer route or territorial boundary is plotted." }, { "id": "modern-thule-inughuit-relocation", "name": "Forced relocation of Inughuit families from Uummannaq at Thule", "region": "North America", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "1953", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1953, "end": 1953, "yearLabel": "1953", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Inughuit families removed from Uummannaq beside Thule Air Base" ], "settlers": [ "Danish authorities; United States military base project" ], "evidence": "UN country-visit report and Danish National Archives account; DMI and GEUS geographic references", "story": "In 1953, Danish authorities forced Inughuit families to leave Uummannaq beside Thule Air Base in northwestern Greenland. The base had been built in their traditional hunting territory under the 1951 defense agreement between Denmark and the United States. Families moved to Qaanaaq and other settlements in the area. Rigsarkivet’s account describes the effort to build houses in Qaanaaq and those other receiving settlements before winter.", "contested": "The UN report gives three days’ notice; Rigsarkivet gives three weeks. These accounts disagree on the notice period. Housing at several settlements does not establish Qaanaaq as every family’s destination.", "note": "The date marks the forced removal in 1953. The additional taking of ancestral land in 1955 and later legal proceedings are subsequent history, outside this stop.", "placeGloss": "The point marks Qaanaaq’s weather station listed for 1995–2004, as a later reference for the receiving town. It does not mark a 1953 home or the whole resettlement area. Old Uummannaq was beside Dundas Fjeld near the air base, distinct from the town of Uummannaq farther south in Greenland. Historical homes and routes are not plotted.", "sources": [ "v7_thule_un_visit_2023", "v7_thule_rigsarkivet_houses", "v7_thule_dmi_station_reference", "v7_thule_dawes_place_distinction" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Qaanaaq (1995–2004 station)", "lon": -69.22, "lat": 77.47 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped" }, { "id": "prospective-indochina-vietnam-boat-exodus", "name": "Vietnamese boat flight and first asylum", "region": "East & Southeast Asia", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "1975–1992; mass maritime flight", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1975, "end": 1992, "yearLabel": "1975–1992", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Vietnamese people seeking asylum by sea, including ethnic Chinese Vietnamese (Hoa) on the maritime route" ], "settlers": [ "Vietnamese authorities; sea travelers and smugglers; pirates and first-asylum authorities; UNHCR and resettlement governments" ], "evidence": "UNHCR’s retrospective regional account and first-asylum arrival summary", "story": "After the fall of Saigon in 1975, Vietnamese began making their own boat journeys to seek asylum. UNHCR’s account links growing departures to re-education detention, resettlement in new economic zones, expropriation of private businesses and mounting hostility toward ethnic Chinese Vietnamese. People crossed in small craft and larger smuggling vessels. They faced shipwreck, pirate attacks and refusal of refuge; Malaysia and Thailand pushed boats back to sea. The 1979 international arrangement tied temporary asylum in the region to resettlement elsewhere. After renewed departures in 1987–89, the 1989 Comprehensive Plan of Action introduced regional refugee screening and return for rejected applicants, while retaining resettlement for recognized refugees and those already in camps before the regional cut-off dates.", "contested": "Departure pressures, motives and treatment varied over time. Hong Kong began screening new arrivals in June 1988, before the regional plan. UNHCR describes both voluntary and involuntary returns and a blurred distinction between them. This regional account does not link each person’s reason for leaving, sea journey, asylum decision and eventual outcome.", "note": "The 1975–1992 span marks the mass flow. UNHCR reports 41 Vietnamese seeking asylum in Southeast Asia in 1992 and negligible numbers afterward, rather than no later departures. The official US-organized evacuation in 1975, direct emigration through the Orderly Departure Programme and overland Hoa flight to China are excluded. Hoa who departed by sea remain included; Cambodian and Laotian movements are separate.", "placeGloss": "UNHCR lists Malaysia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, Japan and Macau as countries or territories of first asylum in its 1975–95 summary. Individual boat journeys are not reconstructed here.", "sources": [ "v7_vietnam_boat_unhcr_2000" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The source identifies first-asylum countries and territories, but does not fix every departure, landing or camp for this cohort. No points, sea routes or territorial boundaries are plotted." }, { "id": "ancient-neo-babylonian-ashkelon-destruction-captivity-604", "name": "Babylon destroys Ashkelon and takes its king captive", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "Late 604 BCE (restored chronicle identification)", "periods": [ { "start": -604, "end": -604, "yearLabel": "Late 604 BCE; restored identification", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Residents of Philistine Ashkelon; its captured king and separately attested royal sons" ], "settlers": [ "Nebuchadnezzar II’s Babylonian army" ], "evidence": "Babylonian chronicle and palace ration lists, read through modern scholarship; Stager’s excavation account", "story": "In late 604 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar II’s Babylonian army captured and destroyed the Philistine port of Ashkelon. The chronicle reports the king’s capture and the city’s plunder. Stager’s excavation account describes burned buildings, collapsed roofs and smashed pottery across the site. Two sons of Ashkelon’s king Agaʾ later appear in palace ration lists at Babylon. Alstola interprets them as prisoners of war; their father does not appear on those lists.", "contested": "The chronicle’s city name is partly broken and restored as Ashkelon. That identification links the excavated late-seventh-century destruction to Kislev, in November–December 604 BCE; archaeology alone cannot supply the exact date. The royal records and destruction deposits do not establish how many residents died, were removed or later returned.", "note": "The imported-labor zero concerns a distinct population brought into Ashkelon. It does not describe the status of Ashkelonians taken abroad. Later community records in Babylonia and Persian-period rebuilding do not extend this operation.", "placeGloss": "The point marks Ashkelon’s ancient site as a geographic reference in ISAW’s Pliny database. It is not a destruction boundary, excavated room, captive assembly point or reconstructed journey. No captivity route is drawn.", "sources": [ "v7_ashkelon_alstola_dissertation", "v7_ashkelon_stager_1996", "v7_ashkelon_isaw_site_reference" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Ashkelon (site reference)", "lon": 34.54732, "lat": 31.66426 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped" }, { "id": "pacific-nauru-phosphate-land-destruction", "name": "Colonial phosphate extraction and destruction of Nauruan land", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "1906–1968", "extent": "island", "periods": [ { "start": 1906, "end": 1968, "yearLabel": "1906–1968", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Nauruans losing use of land mined for phosphate", "Chinese and Gilbert and Ellice Island contract laborers" ], "settlers": [ "German colonial authorities; Australian administration for Australia, Britain and New Zealand", "Pacific Phosphate Company and British Phosphate Commissioners" ], "evidence": "Historical study and comparative anthropological research; no mine-boundary reconstruction", "story": "Colonial phosphate extraction stripped Nauruan land to supply fertilizer overseas. After a concession effective in 1906, the Pacific Phosphate Company began operations in 1907. Later, the British Phosphate Commissioners ran the industry for Australia, Britain and New Zealand. McLennan and Ulijaszek describe a legacy of strip mining without rehabilitation that left much of Nauru unusable for housing or cultivation. Their account includes conditions observed after independence, so it does not measure the land damaged by 1968. Chinese workers faced penal contract enforcement under colonial rule; Viviani records its removal from the labor ordinance in October 1953. Recruitment into contract labor and punishment for breaking a contract are distinct issues.", "contested": "The proposed move to Curtis Island was rejected in 1964 over sovereignty and self-government. It was not a completed relocation. Japanese wartime deportation in 1943, followed by survivors’ return in 1946, belongs to a separate sequence; it is not evidence that phosphate mining expelled Nauruans from the island.", "note": "The period begins with the 1906 concession and ends at independence in 1968. Mining continued afterward. The imported-labor rating is not a measured percentage of arrivals. The cited passages do not establish the share of arrivals under indenture across the full period.", "placeGloss": "Nauru is the affected island. No mine boundaries, household movements, deportation routes or Curtis Island arrival point are plotted.", "sources": [ "v7_nauru_mclennan_ulijaszek", "v7_nauru_viviani_1970" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The sources describe land loss on Nauru but do not supply a dated reconstruction of mined tracts or household movements used here. No points, routes or territorial boundaries are plotted." }, { "id": "prospective-miskito-compulsory-relocation-and-land-loss", "name": "Miskito compulsory relocation and loss of homes and land", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "December 1981–September 1983", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1981, "end": 1983, "yearLabel": "December 1981–September 1983", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Miskito residents of Coco and Bokay River communities" ], "settlers": [ "Nicaraguan Government of National Reconstruction; Sandinista military and administrative authorities" ], "evidence": "IACHR investigation, including government submissions and testimony; no household map or combined population roster", "story": "On 28 December 1981, Nicaragua’s government ordered the relocation of 42 Coco River villages to five Tasba Pri settlements. The IACHR reports that about 8,500 people were moved between 1 January and 20 February 1982, some on foot and others by truck. Flight to Honduras separated other residents from these communities. Families were divided and homes and livestock lost. The report separately identifies about 4,000 people relocated from the Coco and Bokay areas to settlements in Jinotega. These estimates are not added here because their possible overlap is unresolved. The Commission could not confirm deaths during the Tasba Pri move. It separately records a fatal helicopter fire during the Jinotega evacuation in December 1982.", "contested": "The government invoked military danger and earlier development plans. The Commission recognized a real security threat but made its justification of compulsory relocation conditional on necessity, limited duration and assisted voluntary return. It criticized the lack of compensation as an obstacle to return. Officials acknowledged property destruction; the Commission recommended compensation while leaving the strict legal validity of ancestral-land claims undecided.", "note": "December 1981–September 1983 is the report’s review window, not an established end to displacement. The Tasba Pri movement dates are more precise than the full sequence. This case does not combine the relocation figures with the wider Honduras refugee population or establish later restitution.", "placeGloss": "The report describes Coco River villages, Tasba Pri and Jinotega receiving settlements. Exact household locations, movement routes and affected land boundaries are not plotted.", "sources": [ "v7_miskito_iachr_scope", "v7_miskito_iachr_conclusions", "v7_miskito_iachr_residence_property" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "Regional descriptions establish where the relocations occurred, but no dated household locations, routes or land boundaries are reconstructed here. The empty map geometry does not mean the named regions are unknown." }, { "id": "modern-zimbabwe-operation-murambatsvina", "name": "Operation Murambatsvina: Zimbabwe’s urban evictions", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "2005: campaign launched 19 May; aftermath documented through November", "periods": [ { "start": 2005, "end": 2005, "yearLabel": "2005", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Urban households evicted from their homes; informal workers whose premises or livelihoods were destroyed" ], "settlers": [ "Zimbabwean national and municipal authorities and police" ], "evidence": "HRW’s September–October 2005 visits and interviews, later follow-up, and UN estimates quoted in its December report", "story": "Zimbabwean authorities launched Operation Murambatsvina on 19 May 2005, demolishing homes and informal business structures across urban areas. Officials described it as restoring order and removing illegal structures and crime. Human Rights Watch reported that legal homes and businesses were also destroyed. Its September–October investigation found displaced people in Harare, Victoria Falls and Mutare. The report describes families staying with relatives, in makeshift shelters or in the open, and police threats and restrictions on assistance used to press people toward rural areas. Some had no rural home or land. In a later incident, a representative of Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights told HRW that Harare municipal workers and police forcibly moved families from Mbare to Hopley Farm on 14 November despite a court order.", "contested": "HRW cited a UN estimate that 700,000 people lost shelter, livelihood or both, including about 570,000 internally displaced. These figures are not counts to add together. HRW also found inconsistent assessments and no comprehensive registration. HRW contrasts official urban-cleanup claims with analyses alleging an effort to disperse the urban poor and prevent uprisings; it does not establish one motive for every action. The interviews do not trace every household’s destination or long-term return.", "note": "The profile does not imply an incoming settler population or a new settler economy. Its inherited strategic rationale concerns internal political security, not a military frontier. The zero for imported unfree labor is distinct from the coercion used against evicted residents.", "sources": [ "v7_zimbabwe_hrw_evicted_forsaken_2005" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "Exact eviction sites and movement paths are not established here. The report names cities and describes dispersed moves; no household point, common route or affected-area boundary is plotted." }, { "id": "medieval-mutsu-fushu-transfer-725", "name": "782 fushu transferred from Mutsu", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "725 CE; intercalary first month, fourth day (chronicle notice)", "periods": [ { "start": 725, "end": 725, "yearLabel": "725 CE; dated chronicle notice", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "The 782 people from Mutsu recorded as fushu in the 725 notice" ], "settlers": [ "Japanese imperial court and provincial authorities" ], "evidence": "A dated chronicle notice cited by Karl Friday; scholarly context for court classifications", "story": "Karl Friday cites a Shoku Nihongi notice recording 782 fushu transferred from Mutsu to Iyo, Izumi and other provinces in 725. He gives the date as the fourth day of the intercalary first month. The court used fushu for Emishi who had come to terms with it. Friday describes the wider dispersal into interior provinces as a policy aimed at separating fushu groups from their home bases and promoting incorporation. The notice identifies one group; it does not establish the particular purpose or later outcome of this transfer.", "contested": "These court categories do not by themselves establish a person’s ancestry, consent, work or degree of freedom. Friday and Takehiro discuss changing political and legal classifications; neither cited passage follows the 725 group after arrival. General accounts of segregation or incorporation do not establish this group’s experience.", "note": "The imported-labor zero concerns a separate workforce imported into Mutsu, not whether these relocated people arrived freely elsewhere. Their unfree-arrival share remains unknown. The notice gives no household count or allocation among receiving provinces. Journey length, return and descendants are unresolved; the chronicle day is not the duration of the transfer.", "placeGloss": "Mutsu, Iyo and Izumi are historical provincial references. Other receiving provinces are unnamed in the notice. No village locations, individual routes, receiving plots or provincial boundaries are reconstructed here.", "sources": [ "v7_mutsu_friday_1997", "v7_mutsu_takehiro_2000" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The source names an origin and some receiving provinces, but does not locate this group’s villages, routes or receiving plots. No province centroid is substituted for a household location." }, { "id": "prospective-vieques-navy-expropriation-and-relocation", "name": "Navy expropriation and resident relocation on Vieques", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "island", "dates": "1941–2003", "periods": [ { "start": 1941, "end": 2003, "yearLabel": "1941–2003", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Vieques residents, including agricultural workers without land titles and families removed from western and eastern areas" ], "settlers": [ "United States federal government and U.S. Navy" ], "evidence": "Ayala’s study of property records and resident displacement; Bearden’s Congressional Research Service report on land transfers and military closure", "story": "From 1941, the United States acquired land on Vieques for Navy installations through condemnation and purchase. Agricultural workers living on the estates lost homes and work as landowners sold their properties. Houses were demolished, and families were relocated into the island’s central civilian zone. Ayala describes people expelled from Punta Arenas, Mosquito and Llave settling near Isabel II. Military construction briefly offered better-paid work; when construction stopped in 1943, employment declined. The Navy used western Vieques for ammunition storage and the east for training. In April 2001 it transferred western lands to the Municipality of Vieques, the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust and the Department of the Interior. Training ended in 2003, and the eastern lands passed to Interior that April.", "contested": "Property records and aggregate population tables do not provide a count of unique displaced households. Compensation to landowners does not establish compensation adequacy for displaced residents. Bearden’s July 2005 report describes cleanup still under investigation and public-access restrictions on former training land; transfer did not establish unrestricted return.", "note": "The period ends with training cessation and the eastern land transfer in 2003. Imported unfree labor remains unknown; relocation of Vieques residents does not by itself establish a separate labor population brought from elsewhere.", "placeGloss": "Vieques is the affected island. The named barrios describe displacement without specifying a household arrival point or tract boundary. Culebra is a separate island and event.", "sources": [ "v7_vieques_ayala_2001", "v7_vieques_bearden_2005" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The sources identify affected barrios and relocation toward central Vieques. No historical tract boundaries, household locations or routes are reconstructed here, so no movement points or paths are plotted." }, { "id": "medieval-nikephoros-asia-minor-balkan-transfer", "name": "Nikephoros I’s compulsory transfer to the Balkans", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "September 809–Easter 810", "periods": [ { "start": 809, "end": 810, "yearLabel": "809–810", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Imperial subjects compelled to leave Asia Minor; Haldon reads the transfer as involving soldiers and their families" ], "settlers": [ "Emperor Nikephoros I and Byzantine imperial authorities" ], "evidence": "Theophanes’ account examined by John Haldon and Yannis Stouraitis; the later study also cites Haldon", "story": "Between September 809 and Easter 810, Nikephoros I compelled subjects in Asia Minor to sell their property and resettle in the Balkan Sklaviniai, districts recovered by the empire. Historian John Haldon reads this as the transfer of soldiers and their families; both poorer and better-off soldiers were involved. The compulsory sale of their own property is distinct from the terms on which they acquired land after the move. Stouraitis interprets the transfer as primarily intended to strengthen imperial military and political authority in the Balkans.", "contested": "Theophanes was a detractor of Nikephoros; his account is used here through these modern studies. The number moved and the exact receiving settlements are not established. Haldon leaves open whether the newcomers were given land or required to buy it. These passages do not establish a uniform expulsion of destination residents or trace every household’s later life.", "note": "The imported-unfree-labor rating concerns a distinct workforce brought from elsewhere. Its zero does not mean that the transferred households moved voluntarily.", "sources": [ "v7_nikephoros_haldon_2016", "v7_nikephoros_stouraitis_2020" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The sources identify broad source and receiving regions without locating individual settlements. No household sites, shared route or affected-area boundary is plotted." }, { "id": "prospective-english-and-east-india-company-enslaved-labor-colony-on-st-helena-1659-1839", "name": "Enslaved labor in the English and East India Company colony on St Helena", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "1659–1839; emancipation in 1836, legal clarification in 1839", "extent": "island", "periods": [ { "start": 1659, "end": 1839, "yearLabel": "1659–1839", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "African and East Indian workers, later imported captives, and children in the enslaved population" ], "settlers": [ "East India Company directors and governors; private planters, masters and slave traders" ], "evidence": "Bennett’s historical study, a retrospective UK government memorandum, and an attributed heritage account of initial settlement", "story": "English settlement on St Helena began in 1659. The East India Company and private traders imported captives, including people from Madagascar and West Africa in the early eighteenth century. Enslaved people grew food, worked in households and skilled trades, built fortifications, and fished to supply the island and passing ships. Plans for a Caribbean-style plantation economy failed, while slavery continued. Officials and planters enforced restrictive laws and violent punishments. Men escaped in fishing boats in 1718; whether they reached Madagascar is unknown.", "contested": "For 1659–1682, Bennett describes a policy of voluntary, limited service for African and East Indian workers, with freedom after conversion to Christianity and three to seven years of service. He judges permanent enslavement likely in practice but calls the surviving evidence partial. Some people gained freedom before general emancipation.", "note": "A 1938 UK government memorandum reports that an 1818 proclamation made children born from 25 December 1818 free, and that those still enslaved became free on 1 May 1836. It describes the 27 May 1839 ordinance as removing legal doubt and declaring slavery unlawful. The period ends with that legal clarification. The separate Liberated African depot of 1840–1868 is excluded.", "placeGloss": "St Helena is a South Atlantic island. A 2019 heritage scoping report describes it as uninhabited at the start of English settlement. This case follows coerced arrivals and island labor. No voyage routes, individual landholdings or departure and arrival points are plotted.", "sources": [ "v7_st_helena_bennett_2023", "v7_st_helena_uk_memorandum_1938", "v7_st_helena_heritage_2019" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The cited accounts identify the island and broad regions of origin but do not establish the complete voyages or individual movements represented by this case. No points, routes or territorial boundaries are plotted." }, { "id": "ancient-neo-babylonian-judean-deportations-597-587-586", "name": "Judeans deported to Babylonia", "region": "West Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "597 and 587/586 BCE; two separate deportation phases", "periods": [ { "start": -597, "end": -586, "yearLabel": "597 and 587/586 BCE; separate phases", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Judeans removed to Babylonia, including Jerusalem’s royal retinue, elite and craftsmen" ], "settlers": [ "Nebuchadnezzar II and Babylonian military authorities" ], "evidence": "Tero Alstola’s scholarly comparison of cuneiform, biblical and archaeological evidence", "story": "Babylonian conquests of Jerusalem led to deportations in 597 and again in 587 or 586 BCE. In 597, King Jehoiachin, his retinue, members of Jerusalem’s elite and craftsmen were taken to Babylon; Nebuchadnezzar II installed Zedekiah as king. After Zedekiah’s revolt, Babylonian troops destroyed Jerusalem and removed another group to Babylonia. Alstola interprets the deportations as punishment for rebellion, prevention of further unrest and a means of supplying agricultural labor and revenue. Cuneiform records attest Judean inhabitants of Yāhūdu in Babylonia from 572 BCE. That later community evidence does not identify every household with one of the two departure phases.", "contested": "The dates 587 and 586 are alternatives for the second deportation. Biblical deportee totals differ, and Judah’s population decline also involved deaths and flight. Continued settlement in parts of Judah rules out treating the whole country as emptied. Alstola considers roughly 10,000 deportees plausible across the transfers; this is an estimate, not a census or the size of each phase.", "note": "The account follows Alstola’s synthesis; the underlying chronicle, biblical manuscripts and excavations were not independently examined here. The two departure phases form one case, with no continuous eleven-year journey implied. A possible third deportation and later return migrations are outside this case. The imported-labor profile remains unresolved: forced removal alone does not settle its separate-workforce applicability question.", "placeGloss": "Jerusalem and Judah identify the departure setting; Babylon and Babylonia identify receiving settings at different scales. The cited passages do not locate individual journeys or receiving plots. Yāhūdu is a later attested community, not a reconstructed endpoint for every deportee.", "sources": [ "v7_judean_alstola_dissertation" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "No routes, household locations or receiving plots are reconstructed from these regional references." }, { "id": "prospective-portugal-muslim-expulsion-1496-1497", "name": "Muslim expulsion from Portugal", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "1496–1497", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1496, "end": 1497, "yearLabel": "1496–1497", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Portugal’s Muslim communities, including children allowed to depart" ], "settlers": [ "King Manuel I and Portuguese royal authorities" ], "evidence": "Ariel Hessayon’s scholarly review of François Soyer’s study", "story": "In December 1496, King Manuel I issued an expulsion edict. Hessayon’s review reports that Portugal’s Muslim minority was largely expelled in 1497. Muslims were allowed to leave with their children. Their departure was distinct from the forced retention and baptism of Jews.", "contested": "Hessayon reports Soyer’s interpretation that Manuel sought to strengthen his image as a crusading Christian king. The book and original decree were not read for this account.", "note": "Muslim population totals, individual departure dates and property outcomes remain unresolved here. The Jewish cohort and earlier Castilian Jewish refugees are outside this case.", "placeGloss": "Some Muslims may have gone to Castile; others went to North Africa. The review does not establish complete destinations or precise departure and receiving sites.", "sources": [ "v7_portugal_hessayon_2009" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "No source-bound points, routes or territorial boundaries are plotted." }, { "id": "af-uganda-asian-expulsion", "name": "Uganda’s expulsion of residents of South Asian origin", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "1972; August order and November departure deadline", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1972, "end": 1972, "yearLabel": "1972", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Ugandan residents of South Asian origin with differing citizenship statuses" ], "settlers": [ "President Idi Amin and Ugandan authorities" ], "evidence": "UNHCR’s retrospective account, Box 3.2 of The State of the World’s Refugees 2000", "story": "In August 1972, President Idi Amin ordered non-citizens of South Asian origin to leave Uganda within three months. He extended the order to Asians with Ugandan citizenship, then withdrew that extension. UNHCR reports that many applicants refused citizenship became effectively stateless. Exemptions included professionals, but insecurity and harassment prompted mass departure as the deadline approached. More than 50,000 Asians left between the order and the November deadline; others had fled earlier.", "contested": "The order’s changing scope did not give everyone the same legal position. This account does not establish each person’s citizenship, destination or property outcome.", "note": "The Departed Asians’ Property Custodian Board was established to oversee disposal of the expellees’ assets. UNHCR describes arrivals with little to start anew unless assets had been transferred abroad. Earlier migration and later property redress are outside this 1972 event.", "placeGloss": "Receiving countries included the United Kingdom and Canada. Temporary transit accommodation and permanent resettlement were different stages; their figures are not added together here.", "sources": [ "v7_uganda_unhcr_2000_box32" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The account names countries but supplies no complete person-linked routes or receiving sites. No points, routes or territorial boundaries are plotted." }, { "id": "pacific-queensland-islander-labour-recruitment-1863-1904", "name": "South Sea Islander recruitment and transport to Queensland", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "interregional", "dates": "1863–1904", "periods": [ { "start": 1863, "end": 1904, "yearLabel": "1863–1904", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Pacific Islander labourers brought to Queensland, principally from islands now in Vanuatu and Solomon Islands; recruitment included kidnapping and deception" ], "settlers": [ "Queensland plantation employers and labour recruiters; the Queensland colonial government and its Immigration Department" ], "evidence": "Clive Moore’s historical account for Queensland State Archives; Queensland Government and State Library accounts of recruitment, indenture and regulation", "story": "Between 1863 and 1904, Pacific Islanders were brought to Queensland to work under indenture, initially on cotton plantations and especially in sugar production. Many were kidnapped or deceived; some may have left their islands by choice. In Queensland, indenture bound labourers to poorly paid work, while treatment and opportunities differed between first-time workers, people who signed further agreements and longer-established residents. Clive Moore distinguishes more than 62,000 contracts from an estimated 50,000 individuals because some people re-enlisted. Workers who completed an initial term sometimes stayed and made new agreements; a smaller group of long-resident workers, known as ticket-holders, could work independently. The Queensland government regulated recruitment, employment and repatriation through the Polynesian Labourers Act 1868 and Pacific Island Labourers Act 1880. Inspectors were responsible for examining employment conditions and workers’ welfare.", "contested": "Physical kidnapping, deception and other constrained recruitment are different experiences; these accounts do not establish the same circumstances for every worker. Contract totals include repeat agreements. Moore describes substantial mortality, but his reported death-count window extends beyond 1904 and is not a death toll for this event’s exact period.", "note": "This case covers inward recruitment and transport through 1904. The forced deportations of 1906–1908 are a separate event. Imported unfree labor is shown as unknown because its applicability remains unresolved, despite the evidence of coerced recruitment and indenture.", "placeGloss": "Vanuatu and Solomon Islands are modern names for the principal source archipelagos. Queensland is the receiving region; those names do not identify individual departure places, worksites or journeys.", "sources": [ "v7_queensland_moore_qsa", "v7_queensland_qld_community", "v7_queensland_elvery_slq" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "These accounts describe a movement involving many islands and workplaces. No individual voyage or worksite is reconstructed here, so no movement points or routes are plotted." }, { "id": "medieval-mongol-herat-weavers-beshbaliq-return", "name": "Herat weavers: removal and return orders", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1221–c. 1240 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1221, "end": 1240, "yearLabel": "1221–c. 1240 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Weaver households removed from Herat to Beshbaliq" ], "settlers": [ "Tolui and the Mongol imperial authorities; Ögedei later ordered return movements" ], "evidence": "Peter Jackson’s synthesis, with notes to Sayfi’s Herat history and Thomas Allsen’s scholarship", "story": "During the 1221 campaign, Tolui removed weaver households from Herat and sent them to Beshbaliq. Jackson reports Sayfi’s figure of a thousand households. There they made garments for one of Chinggis Khan’s wives and later for Ögedei. Jackson places Ögedei’s orders for the return of two groups of silk weavers in the late 1230s.", "contested": "A thousand households is a source claim, not a count of individuals. The cited passages do not establish the number who returned, the share of the original cohort, or precise dates for the two groups. The case covers coerced artisan removal and return orders; the later punitive sack of Herat is a separate event.", "note": "The inherited Imported unfree labor value remains zero despite the coerced artisan removal described here. That unresolved mismatch must not be read as voluntary migration or an absence of forced labor. Settler implantation and Elimination over incorporation remain evidence ranges. The account follows Jackson; Sayfi’s chronicle and Allsen’s underlying study were not directly examined.", "placeGloss": "Herat and Beshbaliq (Jackson’s Beshbaligh) identify the departure and workshop settings. No workshop footprint, journey line or intermediate stop is reconstructed.", "sources": [ "v7_herat_jackson" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The cited passages name the two places but do not locate the transferred households, their workshops or individual journeys." }, { "id": "modern-canada-high-arctic-relocation", "name": "Canadian High Arctic Inuit relocations", "region": "North America", "fit": "contextual", "dates": "1953–1955", "extent": "regional", "periods": [ { "start": 1953, "end": 1955, "yearLabel": "1953–1955", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Inuit families relocated from Inukjuak and Pond Inlet" ], "settlers": [ "Canadian federal authorities and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police" ], "evidence": "1994 Royal Commission inquiry, including Inuit testimony and government records; 2010 federal apology; current geographic reference records", "story": "In 1953, Canadian authorities relocated Inuit families from Inukjuak in northern Quebec and Pond Inlet on Baffin Island to the High Arctic. The receiving communities were Resolute Bay on Cornwallis Island and Grise Fiord on Ellesmere Island; more families moved in 1955. Pond Inlet participants were recruited to help the Inukjuak families adjust. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples concluded that the Inukjuak relocatees had not given free and informed consent. Its report documents family separation, inadequate equipment and supplies, and the failure to honour promises of return. In August 2010, Canada formally apologized for the relocation and its hardships.", "contested": "Participants’ expectations and experiences differed. The Commission records both hopes for better hunting and pressure to go; Pond Inlet guides expected payment they did not receive. It judged sovereignty a material consideration while identifying social and economic concerns as primary. Sovereignty alone does not explain its account.", "note": "The date range covers the two relocation years, not the end of their consequences. The inherited imported-unfree-labor score remains zero; it does not mean the relocation was freely chosen. Inuit relocatees are the affected population, not a new voluntary settler stream.", "placeGloss": "The points locate present-day Resolute and Grise Fiord using Canada’s official place-name records. They identify the receiving areas, not individual 1950s camps or homes. The report distinguishes Craig Harbour from Grise Fiord; historical routes and the unsuccessful Cape Herschel destination are not plotted.", "sources": [ "v7_high_arctic_rcap_1994", "v7_high_arctic_apology_2010", "v7_high_arctic_grise_reference", "v7_high_arctic_resolute_reference" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Resolute (modern reference)", "lon": -94.829167, "lat": 74.695833 }, { "name": "Grise Fiord (modern reference)", "lon": -82.895833, "lat": 76.416667 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped" }, { "id": "asia-sardar-sarovar-narmada-displacement", "name": "Sardar Sarovar reservoir displacement", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1987–2019; clearance to full-reservoir milestone", "periods": [ { "start": 1987, "end": 2019, "yearLabel": "1987–2019; project milestones", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Adivasi and other communities affected by the reservoir in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh" ], "settlers": [ "Government of India, Narmada Control Authority and participating state governments" ], "evidence": "Official project announcements, a critical account by Himanshu Thakkar and a Gujarat household survey by Aiyar and Kaushal", "story": "The Sardar Sarovar reservoir displaced communities in three Indian states, including Adivasi households. The project received environmental clearance in June 1987. In June 2017, the Narmada Control Authority permitted the gates to be lowered and water impounded to a full reservoir level of 138.68 metres. A September 2019 government release reported that the reservoir had reached that level for the first time since the 2017 height increase.", "contested": "Thakkar’s critical account reports problems with replacement land, services and community dispersal, including a 1999 Gujarat resettlement-site example. Aiyar and Kaushal’s May–June 2017 survey of 401 households resettled in 25 larger Gujarat villages found higher ownership of several consumer assets than among their sampled neighbors in partly submerged villages. In that survey, 54% accepted a hypothetical exchange of their present land for their former amount of land in a higher, unsubmerged part of their old village. These observations concern different periods and populations.", "note": "The 1987 start marks environmental clearance, not the first relocation. The 2019 endpoint marks reservoir filling, not completed displacement or rehabilitation. The survey covers Gujarat resettlements, not all affected people in all three states; it lacked comparable before-and-after data. Neither the government milestones nor the sample findings establish uniform rehabilitation outcomes.", "placeGloss": "The dam and reservoir, submerged village land and resettlement sites are distinct places. The cited material does not provide a usable georeferenced footprint or household routes for this case.", "sources": [ "v7_sardar_nber2018", "v7_sardar_thakkar", "v7_sardar_pib1987", "v7_sardar_pib2017", "v7_sardar_pib2019" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "No reservoir boundary, village-loss polygon, receiving-site footprint or journey is reconstructed from the named places." }, { "id": "af-cabo-verde-colonial-population-formation", "name": "Cabo Verde: colonial settlement and enslaved African transport", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "island", "dates": "1462–1878; broad period, with local emancipation in 1874", "periods": [ { "start": 1462, "end": 1878, "yearLabel": "1462–1878", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Enslaved Africans transported from western Africa for labour in the islands or onward sale" ], "settlers": [ "Portuguese crown, merchants and estate holders; European settlers" ], "evidence": "Scholarly history, official heritage accounts and the full 31 October 1874 emancipation decree", "story": "Portuguese settlers arrived in 1462 in an archipelago Brooks describes as uninhabited. On Santiago, called São Tiago in his account, and Fogo, Portuguese, Genoese and Castilian estate holders imported enslaved Africans to work plantations. Ribeira Grande, now Cidade Velha, received captives for labour in the islands and onward shipment to Brazil. Sugar and cotton plantations, herding and textile production used enslaved labour. On 31 October 1874, a royal decree declared all people then classed as libertos in Cabo Verde free and repealed contrary legislation. Its preamble described complete, immediate emancipation and explicitly brought forward the deadline provided by law for 1878.", "contested": "The decree does not establish when each local authority implemented it or that every form of coercive labour ended. No aggregate count of people enslaved on the islands or trafficked through them is supplied here. The affected population is the people transported under enslavement; no prior resident island population is claimed to have been displaced.", "note": "The dates retain the atlas’s broad 1462–1878 periodization. The 1878 endpoint is not the date of Cabo Verde’s local emancipation: the decree ended liberto status there in 1874. The inherited Settler replacement family does not establish replacement of a prior island population. The Imported unfree labor value of 100 is an ordinal profile judgment, not a percentage of arrivals.", "placeGloss": "The point uses UNESCO’s present-day reference coordinate for Cidade Velha, the historic centre of Ribeira Grande on Santiago. It identifies a documented receiving port, not an individual landing, plantation, captive residence or the whole archipelago’s affected land. Fogo remains part of the account, without an invented location or connecting route.", "sources": [ "v7_cabo_brooks_2006", "v7_cabo_ipc_conceicao", "v7_cabo_unesco_cidade_velha", "v7_cabo_decree_1874" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Cidade Velha / Ribeira Grande (modern heritage reference)", "lon": -23.605194444444447, "lat": 14.915138888888889 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped" }, { "id": "qin-nanyang-attack-convict-placement-280-bce", "name": "Qin: attack on Chu and convict relocation to Nanyang", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "280 BCE; King Zhaoxiang year 27, duration unknown", "periods": [ { "start": -280, "end": -280, "yearLabel": "280 BCE; regnal year 27", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Convicted people granted amnesty and relocated to Nanyang" ], "settlers": [ "Qin ruling authority; Sima Cuo led the recorded attack on Chu" ], "evidence": "Received annalistic notice, a specialist reading of penal relocation and a modern conference paper with a chronology discrepancy", "story": "In King Zhaoxiang’s twenty-seventh year, conventionally 280 BCE, Qin granted amnesty to convicted people and relocated them to Nanyang. The Shiji notice places this move alongside Sima Cuo’s attack on Chu. Barbieri-Low reads the penal use of qian (遷), the verb for this relocation, as banishment. He explicitly leaves open whether the convicts volunteered for the amnesty arrangement or were selected by officials. This account concerns the relocation of the convicted group; it does not establish the fate of every prior resident of Nanyang.", "contested": "Barbieri-Low describes killing or driving out residents and replacing them with convicts across Qin’s wider campaign against Chu. That interpretation does not supply a local removal total for Nanyang. The annal gives no number of people relocated, their household composition, the duration of their stay or a measured return outcome. Amnesty does not by itself establish either an unconstrained choice of residence or identical coercion for every individual.", "note": "The single stop marks an annual notice, not a known one-year displacement. The year 26 Rang placement and year 28 capture and placement at Yan and Deng remain separate operations; distinct notices do not prove distinct people or nonoverlapping land. Miyake’s English sequence conflicts with the Chinese quotation in his note 2; the year 27 date follows the annal and Barbieri-Low. Imported unfree labor remains unknown: the applicability gate is unknown; unfree-incomer share cannot establish imported labor by itself.", "sources": [ "v7_qin_nanyang_shiji5", "v7_qin_rang_barbieri_low", "v7_qin_rang_miyake" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "Nanyang is the named receiving region. The consulted passages do not establish a defensible point, boundary or route for this placement. The military movement from Longxi through Shu is not a convict itinerary. No modern Nanyang city marker is substituted." }, { "id": "af-kololo-conquest-barotseland", "name": "Kololo conquest and rule in Barotseland", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "c. 1838–1864", "periods": [ { "start": 1838, "end": 1864, "yearLabel": "c. 1838–1864", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Lozi communities and ruling families in the Upper Zambezi valley: some remained under Kololo rule; others fled" ], "settlers": [ "Sebitwane’s Kololo conquerors and their successors; Lozi resistance led by Njekwa during the overthrow" ], "evidence": "Jack Hogan’s historical synthesis, drawing on Lozi traditions, earlier scholarship and traders’ and missionaries’ records", "story": "Sebitwane’s Kololo forces entered the Lozi kingdom in the Upper Zambezi valley around 1840, while its rulers were divided by a succession struggle. Some Lozi remained in the valley; others, including members of the ruling families, fled to Nyengo and Lukwakwa. The conquerors co-opted some Lozi leaders and ruled over settlements in which subject peoples outnumbered the Kololo.\n\nKololo rulers drew wealth from raiding and from trade in enslaved people and ivory. After Sekeletu died in 1863, civil war weakened their rule. In 1864, a Lozi rising led by Njekwa overthrew the Kololo, and Sipopa became ruler. Hogan presents evidence of widespread killing during the overthrow, including an account relayed to the trader Silva Porto. After the overthrow, Sikololo was still spoken alongside Siluyana and other languages.", "contested": "The c. 1838 starting date is inherited from the event record; Hogan places the invasion around 1840. Reports of the 1864 killings do not establish an exact death toll here. Silva Porto had left before the uprising and later recorded information received from another man. The survival of several languages does not support a claim that Kololo rule erased Siluyana.", "note": "The account follows Hogan, rather than a direct reading of the traditions, journals and earlier studies he uses. The inherited Imported unfree labor value remains zero; the slave raiding and trading described here do not establish the share of a separately imported workforce.", "placeGloss": "Barotseland is the Lozi kingdom of the Upper Zambezi valley. Nyengo and Lukwakwa are named places of refuge in Hogan’s account. No migration route, settlement footprint or kingdom boundary is reconstructed.", "sources": [ "v7_kololo_hogan_2014" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The consulted narrative names the valley and places of refuge without defining the affected tract or journeys. Hogan’s regional map describes peoples around 1900, after this case’s period." }, { "id": "modern-huguenot-exile", "name": "Huguenot exile after the Revocation", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1685–1715", "periods": [ { "start": 1685, "end": 1715, "yearLabel": "1685–1715", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "French Protestants: ministers facing expulsion unless they converted, and lay believers fleeing religious repression" ], "settlers": [ "Louis XIV and royal authorities imposing religious restrictions; Huguenots undertaking exile" ], "evidence": "The revocation edict in an English sourcebook excerpt, and the Musée protestant’s historical account of flight and reception", "story": "In October 1685, Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, prohibited Protestant worship and ordered Protestant churches demolished. Ministers who would not become Catholics had to leave within a fortnight of publication. Other Protestant subjects, including wives and children, were forbidden to leave: men faced the galleys, women imprisonment and confiscation. The edict also threatened confiscation of property left by earlier emigrants unless they returned within four months. French Protestants nevertheless fled. The Musée protestant describes refuge in England, the United Provinces, Switzerland and Geneva, and German states, with smaller movements farther afield. Assistance coexisted with social tensions and pressure to move onward.", "contested": "The 1685–1715 dates bound this Revocation-related episode; persecution and departures continued after 1715. The museum’s estimates cover broader or differently defined populations and do not establish a count for this exact event. People passing through one refuge might settle in another. Neither a single total made by adding receiving-country figures nor permanent exile for every refugee is asserted.", "note": "Imported unfree labor retains its inherited zero for this outgoing exile episode. It does not mean the migration was voluntary or that galley punishment was absent. The profile does not measure land outcomes in each receiving society. The English edict excerpt states legal commands; the museum supplies the account of flight and reception.", "placeGloss": "France is the affected homeland. The named refuge territories identify reception and transit settings, not one journey or a set of precisely located settlements.", "sources": [ "v7_huguenot_fordham_edict", "v7_huguenot_musee_refuge" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The sources describe varied departures and destinations. No single route, departure point, settlement footprint or precise cohort location is mapped for this episode." }, { "id": "am-mexico-yaqui-war-deportation", "name": "Yaqui dispossession and deportation to Yucatán", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "c. 1900–1910 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1900, "end": 1910, "yearLabel": "c. 1900–1910 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Yaqui people of Sonora, including captives deported to Yucatán" ], "settlers": [ "Mexican federal and Sonoran authorities; land-seeking businesses and Yucatán plantation owners" ], "evidence": "Luis Anaya-Merchant’s study of Yaqui exile and labor on Yucatán’s henequen estates", "story": "Under Porfirio Díaz, Mexican federal forces and Sonoran authorities dispossessed Yaquis and deported thousands of captives from Sonora to henequen estates in Yucatán. Luis Anaya-Merchant connects the campaign to politicians’ and business interests in Yaqui land. He describes dispersal across estates, heavy workloads, poor food and means of confinement. After the army’s victory at Mazacoba in early 1900, Yaquis also dispersed toward Arizona, the hills and the Altar desert. In 1911, liberation and return initiatives sought to bring deportees back to Sonora; the number who returned remains uncertain.", "contested": "The deportation totals are estimates: censuses could undercount people, captors could inflate their counts, and the name Yaqui was also applied to other Indigenous peoples. Those estimates are not used here to calculate a removed share, a mortality rate or a settler replacement rate. Anaya-Merchant argues that slavery and peonage were difficult to distinguish in practice, contesting paternalist interpretations of plantation labor. This is his argument within a historiographical dispute.", "note": "The c. 1900–1910 interval does not mark completed liberation or return. The inherited Imported unfree labor value is an index, not the percentage of deportees who were coerced; its low value must not be read as evidence of voluntary labor. The account follows Anaya-Merchant; the underlying books, archival records and newspapers were not directly examined.", "placeGloss": "Sonora and Yucatán identify the departure region and plantation setting. Arizona, the hills and the Altar desert concern dispersal after the fighting. No particular village, plantation boundary or transport route is reconstructed.", "sources": [ "v7_yaqui_anaya_2019" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The read passages name broad regions and discuss dispersed estates. They do not establish a cohort-specific origin, destination footprint or dated journey line. Regional centroids would imply an unsupported location." }, { "id": "prospective-gr-roman-sutrium-colonial-transition-circa-383", "name": "Sutrium colonial transition", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "c. 383 BCE (competing earlier colony label)", "periods": [ { "start": -383, "end": -383, "yearLabel": "c. 383 BCE (competing earlier colony label)", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Prior residents and landholders in the colony’s attributed territory; no founding-time removal cohort is identified in the read evidence" ], "settlers": [ "Roman colonial authorities and settlers of unresolved number and composition" ], "evidence": "Velleius’s foundation notice, Diodorus’s competing earlier colony label, Livy’s recovery accounts, and Monica Chiabà’s source-critical reconstruction", "story": "Velleius lists Sutrium among colonies founded by order of the Roman senate and dates its foundation seven years after the Gallic capture of Rome. The atlas places this transition conventionally at c. 383 BCE, following Monica Chiabà’s reading of that notice. Chiabà describes Sutrium’s colony as established on territory confiscated from Falerii, principally to defend Roman citizens’ new settlements in former Veientine and Capenate territory. This is an attributed reconstruction of colonial land use, not a dated record of a fresh confiscation in 383. The passages do not establish the founders’ number or household composition, or a founding-time removal count.", "contested": "Diodorus already calls Sutrium a Roman colony in his earlier account of Camillus recovering the town. Livy describes it as Rome’s ally and recounts residents expelled by Etruscans and then restored. Chiabà favors a Roman garrison preceding the colony. These are competing accounts of status and chronology; the earlier expulsion, recovery massacres and restored Sutrines are not evidence about the later founding cohort. The single c. 383 timestamp does not measure the duration of settlement or date the antecedent taking from Falerii.", "note": "All eight profile traits retain insufficient-evidence status. Government direction’s inherited 25 and lethal coercion’s inherited 0 are not supported point estimates. Imported unfree labor remains unknown: the applicability gate is unknown, and an unfree-incomer share cannot establish imported labor by itself. No incoming refugee-origin status is inferred from the earlier Sutrine expulsion.", "placeGloss": "Sutrium (modern Sutri) lies in southern Etruria on the Faliscan frontier. The confiscated tract’s bounds are not identified.", "sources": [ "v7_sutrium_chiaba", "v7_sutrium_velleius", "v7_sutrium_diodorus", "v7_sutrium_livy" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The read sources identify the town and discuss attributed territory but do not supply an assessed coordinate, confiscated-land boundary or colonist route for this event." }, { "id": "am-suriname-javanese-contract-worker-migration-1890-1930", "name": "Javanese contract migration to Suriname", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1890–1930; contract-migration phase, with later contract expiry", "periods": [ { "start": 1890, "end": 1930, "yearLabel": "1890–1930", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Migrants from the Netherlands East Indies recruited as Javanese contract workers; not all came from Java" ], "settlers": [ "Dutch colonial authorities, recruiters and plantation employers; NHM, owner of Mariënburg plantation" ], "evidence": "An institutional archival guide and a literary study’s historical overview; individual contracts and land records were not inspected", "story": "Javanese contract migration to Suriname began in 1890 with an experiment on Mariënburg plantation, owned by the NHM. The Nationaal Archief guide describes migrants from the Netherlands East Indies, now Indonesia, being registered, examined and signing contracts in departure depots before traveling to Paramaribo. The records called these migrants Javanese even though not all came from Java. According to the guide, they traveled through Amsterdam until 1914, except in 1894. Hoefte describes deceptive recruiting promises and plantation labor disciplined through penal sanctions. Employers could pursue criminal penalties for labor infractions, and workers needed an employer’s permission to leave the plantation. She also describes an offer to former contract workers: 100 guilders and an uncultivated plot in exchange for their return passage.", "contested": "The 1930 boundary marks the transition in migration, not the expiry of every contract. The guide’s regular contract-number series ends in 1929 and labels 1930 arrivals free immigrants. Hoefte places the turn to free colonists around 1930, says penal sanctions remained in force in Suriname until 1932, and dates the wind-down of contract labor to 1935. These sources do not identify the exact last contracted departure. Later free-immigrant and farmer-colonist projects, and the separate British-Indian and Chinese streams, remain outside this case.", "note": "The consulted overview does not measure how many recruits were misled or how many former workers took up the land offer. An uncultivated plot does not establish that the land was unoccupied; these passages do not demonstrate a shared displacement outcome for Indigenous communities. Arrival and return totals extending to 1939 or 1954 are not counts for this event. The route follows the archival guide: Hoefte’s p. 147 sentence appears to name Java, rather than Suriname, as the destination after Amsterdam. Her literary scenes from Deli and Suriname are not used as documentary evidence for this account.", "sources": [ "v7_javanese_nationaal_archief_guide", "v7_javanese_hoefte_2016" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The guide names departure ports, Paramaribo and plantations, but the consulted sources do not locate the workers’ receiving plots or establish a defensible event footprint. No port coordinate, plantation boundary or uniform voyage line is inferred from those names." }, { "id": "modern-nauru-japanese-deportation", "name": "Japanese wartime deportation of Nauruans to Chuuk", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1943–1946", "periods": [ { "start": 1943, "end": 1946, "yearLabel": "1943–1946", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Nauruans deported from their island to the Truk group; survivors returned in 1946" ], "settlers": [ "Japanese occupation authorities directing the deportations and forced work" ], "evidence": "Nancy Viviani’s historical account, drawing on deportees’ reports and wartime and postwar records", "story": "Japanese occupation authorities deported Nauruans to the Truk group in two transfers in 1943. The first left on 30 June and the second on 16 August. Viviani places the first deportation amid worsening food shortages on Nauru; the families selected were told they would be taken to an island with plentiful food.\n\nOn the receiving islands, the deportees faced inadequate food and lacked housing and medical care. Japanese authorities forced Nauruan men into airstrip construction. The deportees built huts for shelter and canoes for fishing. Viviani reports hundreds of Nauruan deaths on Truk during 1944 and 1945.\n\nThe surviving deportees returned to Nauru on 31 January 1946. Viviani describes their reunion with people at home alongside news of relatives’ deaths and the destruction of their homes.", "contested": "Viviani questions the suspicion that landowners were deported to make disposal of their property easier. She states that Japanese documentation was unavailable to her. The reason given to families about food does not establish the full purpose of the deportations.", "note": "This case follows the Nauruan deportees. Banabans moved to Nauru, Chinese deportees and accompanying priests remain distinct groups in Viviani’s account.", "placeGloss": "Viviani uses Truk for the island group called Chuuk in the event record. No exact landing place or voyage route is reconstructed.", "sources": [ "v7_nauru_wartime_viviani_1970" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The wartime passages identify the Truk group without naming the receiving islands. The book’s map of Nauru depicts 1965 district geography, not wartime deportation sites or routes." }, { "id": "asia-kaptai-dam-chakma-displacement", "name": "Kaptai Dam: reservoir flooding and displacement", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1957–1964", "periods": [ { "start": 1957, "end": 1964, "yearLabel": "1957–1964", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Chakma and other Indigenous Jumma communities whose homes and cultivated land were flooded" ], "settlers": [ "Pakistan government and the Kaptai hydropower project" ], "evidence": "Source-attributed accounts by Mangal Kumar Chakma on the PCJSS website and Nalori Chakma for International Rivers", "story": "The Pakistan government’s Kaptai hydropower project flooded homes and cultivated valley land in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, then in East Pakistan. Nalori Chakma’s International Rivers account dates the start of construction to 1957 and completion to the early 1960s. Mangal Kumar Chakma, writing on the PCJSS party website, describes the loss of paddy fields and vegetable gardens, the flooding of much of Rangamati town, and inadequate compensation and rehabilitation. He reports that some displaced Chakma and other Jumma people went to India or Myanmar. He also describes displaced plough cultivators who remained in the Hill Tracts and were compelled to take up shifting cultivation after losing valley fields.", "contested": "These are critical advocacy accounts, and International Rivers draws on PCJSS as well as other publications. They are not two independent displacement censuses. Their area figures and chronology are inconsistent or insufficiently explained; no affected-area total, removed population share or compensation rate is calculated here. Claims of deliberate destruction of the Jumma economy, universal cultural loss or uniform treatment of displaced households are not established by this bounded reading.", "note": "The modeled 1957–1964 interval does not establish a final displacement date or completed rehabilitation in 1964. Later settlement programs and armed conflict are separate event histories. The inherited Imported unfree labor value of zero does not mean the reservoir displacement was voluntary. The full Parveen and Faisal article cited by International Rivers was not available for direct reading.", "placeGloss": "The Karnaphuli River and Rangamati identify the reservoir setting. India and Myanmar are broad reported destinations; no individual household journey, receiving site or affected-land boundary is reconstructed.", "sources": [ "v7_kaptai_pcjss_chakma", "v7_kaptai_rivers_chakma_2021" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The accounts identify the reservoir setting, named river valleys and broad migration destinations. Their illustrations and area figures do not establish a dated affected-land boundary or a cohort-specific journey. The named river and town are narrated; no authenticated coordinate or footprint is supplied by this assessment." }, { "id": "prospective-gr-roman-nepet-colonial-transition-commissioned-383-alternative-373", "name": "Nepet colonial transition", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "383 BCE commission; alternative foundation tradition 373 BCE", "periods": [ { "start": -383, "end": -383, "yearLabel": "383 BCE commission; alternative foundation tradition 373 BCE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Prior residents and landholders in Nepet’s attributed colonial territory; founding-time effects on residents remain unmeasured" ], "settlers": [ "Roman colonial authorities and intended settlers; the founders’ number and composition are unresolved" ], "evidence": "Livy’s commission notice, Velleius’s alternative foundation sequence, and Monica Chiabà’s reconstruction of colonial land use", "story": "Livy records the appointment of three commissioners to establish a colony at Nepet. Monica Chiabà places this commission in 383 BCE. Livy assigns a separate group of five commissioners to divide the Pomptine territory.\n\nChiabà describes Nepet’s colony, like neighboring Sutrium, as established on territory confiscated from Falerii, chiefly to defend Roman citizens’ new settlements in former Veientine and Capenate territory. This territorial connection is her reconstruction; it does not date a new confiscation in 383 or identify a founding-time removal cohort.", "contested": "Velleius’s sequence places the foundation of Nepe ten years after Sutrium, conventionally 373 BCE. Chiabà favors a joint foundation in 383. The commission is not proof that settlement was completed then, and the competing dates do not establish a ten-year implementation delay or two colonial waves. Livy’s earlier account of Nepet’s recovery, killings and restoration of property concerns a separate episode; its victims and restored residents cannot be counted as the colony’s founding cohort.", "note": "All eight profile traits retain insufficient-evidence status. The inherited values for government direction (25), legal and property machinery (50), and lethal coercion (0) are not supported point estimates. Imported unfree labor remains unknown because its applicability gate is unknown.", "placeGloss": "Nepet is modern Nepi on the western Faliscan frontier; Livy’s English text uses Nepete and Velleius’s uses Nepe.", "sources": [ "v7_nepet_chiaba", "v7_nepet_livy", "v7_nepet_velleius" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "Chiabà locates the town on a tufa promontory between two valleys and describes its frontier position. These passages do not delimit the colony’s land or a settlers’ route. No assessed coordinate or historical footprint is supplied here." }, { "id": "pacific-australia-south-sea-islander-deportation-1906-1908", "name": "Deportation of South Sea Islanders from Australia", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "Late 1906–1908", "periods": [ { "start": 1906, "end": 1908, "yearLabel": "Late 1906–1908", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "South Sea Islander residents deported from Australia; Islanders who remained are outside this removal cohort" ], "settlers": [ "Australian federal government implementing removal under the Pacific Island Labourers Act of 1901" ], "evidence": "National Museum of Australia institutional history; deportation dates and approximate totals, not individual removal files", "story": "Australia’s federal government required most South Sea Island labourers to leave under the Pacific Island Labourers Act of 1901, part of the White Australia policy. The National Museum of Australia dates the deportations from late 1906 through 1908. It reports that more than 7,500 Islanders were sent to their countries of origin, including people who had arrived in Australia too young to remember those countries. About 2,500 Pacific Islanders remained. Islanders had campaigned against the law, sending protests to the Prime Minister, Governor-General and King; the museum records no major change to the Act. This outward removal of residents is separate from earlier recruitment into Queensland.", "contested": "The museum gives an aggregate account, not individual destinations or exemption decisions. Its earlier recruitment total does not count this deportation cohort. The read article does not establish household losses, resettlement conditions or a uniform experience after removal.", "note": "Imported unfree labor remains unknown in the inherited profile: the applicability gate is unknown, and an unfree-incomer share cannot establish imported labor by itself. This is not a zero or a finding that departure was voluntary. Legal and property machinery, elimination over incorporation, lethal coercion, durability and separation from homeland also retain limited-evidence displays.", "placeGloss": "Australia is the departure setting. Islands named in the museum’s earlier recruitment history do not identify each deportee’s destination.", "sources": [ "v7_islander_deportation_nma" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The read museum article supplies no assessed departure port, receiving-island coordinate or individual route for this deportation event." }, { "id": "medieval-mongol-bukhara-capture-dispersal-levy", "name": "Bukhara: surrender, forced dispersal and military levy", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "February–March 1220", "periods": [ { "start": 1220, "end": 1220, "yearLabel": "February–March 1220", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Bukhara residents expelled from the city and compelled into Mongol military service" ], "settlers": [ "Mongol forces under Chinggis Khan" ], "evidence": "Peter Jackson’s scholarly synthesis of accounts by Ibn al-Athir and Juwayni", "story": "Bukhara surrendered to Chinggis Khan’s forces in 1220, while its citadel continued to resist. In Peter Jackson’s account, the residents negotiated terms after the defending troops had fled, but their property was forfeited and they were compelled to help attack the citadel. Once it fell, residents were driven out, divided into groups and deported. Jackson also recounts plunder, sexual violence against women and the killing of people found inside the city. Deportees were incorporated into the Mongol forces and taken toward Samarqand, where they were used to intimidate the city. His account also identifies forced levies from Bukhara among those employed against Khujand.", "contested": "Jackson distinguishes the treatment of cities that surrendered, resisted or rebelled and cautions against sweeping claims in the medieval narratives. This account follows his Bukhara reconstruction; it is not an independent reading of Ibn al-Athir or Juwayni. No population total, death toll, artisan count or removed share is established here, and the treatment of neighboring cities is not transferred to Bukhara.", "note": "February–March 1220 is the inherited modeled date window, not an exact capture date verified here. The 17 March date in Jackson’s campaign narrative belongs to Samarqand. Later return and rebuilding are outside this stop. The inherited Imported unfree labor value of zero does not mean that Bukhara’s residents were free from forced labor or deportation; the complete profile and its evidence limits are retained.", "placeGloss": "Bukhara is the city of expulsion. Samarqand and Khujand are named military destinations in the account, not verified final homes for all deportees or a reconstructed itinerary.", "sources": [ "v7_bukhara_jackson_2017" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The read account identifies the cities and distinguishes Bukhara’s urban population from its resisting citadel. It provides no authenticated coordinates, dated city footprint, expulsion assembly area or cohort-specific route. Named destinations are narrated; no modern city boundary or straight-line journey is substituted." }, { "id": "af-volta-akosombo-resettlement", "name": "Akosombo Dam flooding and Volta Basin resettlement", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1961–1966", "periods": [ { "start": 1961, "end": 1966, "yearLabel": "1961–1966", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Volta Basin residents displaced by reservoir flooding; New Ajena residents provide the article’s local housing example" ], "settlers": [ "Government of Ghana under Kwame Nkrumah and authorities carrying out the resettlement program" ], "evidence": "Iain Jackson’s 2019 housing account, republished by CCE Online News; New Ajena recollections and the separate Akosombo worker town", "story": "In Ghana’s Volta River project, reservoir flooding displaced residents from homes and farmland upstream of the Akosombo Dam. Iain Jackson’s 2019 housing account describes New Ajena as a resettlement village replacing the former Ajena, which the lake submerged. Its small core houses provided a single room and raised veranda, intended for residents to enlarge later. Jackson reports interviews with residents who had lived there since the early 1960s: they recalled some larger families being forced to move from multi-room homes into one room, with overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. Akosombo’s town for hydro-power workers was a different development. Jackson contrasts its planned services with New Ajena’s more limited provision. In the wider resettlement program, he reports food distributed in exchange for labour and residents compelled to clear land.", "contested": "The New Ajena interviews do not establish the experience of every resettled community. Jackson’s descriptions of later services and resident additions belong to his 2019 account; they are not conditions verified today. Aggregate village, acreage and housing-production figures are not used to quantify this case.", "note": "The atlas retains the inherited 1961–1966 interval; the read housing article does not independently establish both endpoints or show that displacement and rehabilitation were complete in 1966. Imported unfree labor retains its inherited value of zero. That measure does not establish that relocation or the site-clearance work was voluntary.", "placeGloss": "New Ajena is the resettlement example; the former Ajena was submerged. Akosombo’s dam-worker town is a separate place and housing program.", "sources": [ "v7_akosombo_jackson_cce" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The read article names the dam, former Ajena and New Ajena but supplies no assessed coordinate, reservoir boundary, affected-village footprint or individual relocation route." }, { "id": "prospective-culebra-navy-control-resident-relocation-and-range-closure", "name": "Culebra: resident relocation for a naval range", "region": "Caribbean", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "island", "dates": "1901–1975", "periods": [ { "start": 1901, "end": 1975, "yearLabel": "1901–1975", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Culebra residents required to move outside the Navy bombardment zone; the cited report does not give the number moved" ], "settlers": [ "United States federal government and Navy; Congress and federal land agencies in range closure and land disposition" ], "evidence": "Congressional Research Service report, 7 July 2005: required resident relocation, naval use through 1975, land disposition and later cleanup limits", "story": "In 1901, the United States government placed Culebra under Navy control for training and required residents to move outside the bombardment zone. David Bearden’s Congressional Research Service report describes this relocation within the island; it does not give a count of those moved. The Navy conducted training on Culebra and in surrounding waters through 1975. Responding to public safety concerns about live-fire training, Congress directed the Navy to cease operations and relocate them elsewhere under the Reserve Forces Facilities Authorization Act of 1974. In 1975, the Navy transferred land to the General Services Administration for conveyance to nonfederal entities for conservation and public recreation. The federal government retained a portion, which the report described in 2005 as a National Wildlife Refuge managed by the Department of the Interior. Closure left a further cleanup problem. The report records limited surface removal of munitions from publicly accessible areas since 1995, including beaches and campgrounds, while comprehensive cleanup remained unbegun in 2005.", "contested": "The report’s figure of 1,700 describes the civilian population living in the relocation areas in 2005, not the number removed in 1901. Its account does not identify household destinations, compensation or parcel boundaries. The 1975 closure does not establish complete restoration of residents’ land or unrestricted access. Cleanup observations describe 2005, not present conditions. Culebra’s relocation and closure are distinct from the report’s Vieques history.", "note": "The analytical profile is inherited from the frozen scientific release. Government direction has a supported value; legal and property machinery retains a partial-evidence range. The other six traits remain insufficiently evidenced for solid point displays. Imported unfree labor is unknown, not zero: the applicability gate is unresolved. These limits do not negate the documented requirement that residents relocate.", "placeGloss": "Culebra, off Puerto Rico. The reported movement was from the bombardment zone to other areas of the island; exact relocation points are not established here.", "sources": [ "v7_culebra_crs_2005" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The consulted report identifies Culebra and relocation outside the bombardment zone but does not locate the removed households, receiving sites or historical tract boundaries. No route or tract is inferred from the Navy’s headquarters or from Vieques." }, { "id": "qin-yan-deng-capture-convict-placement-279-bce", "name": "Qin: amnesty relocations to Yan and Deng", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "279 BCE (Zhaoxiang year 28)", "periods": [ { "start": -279, "end": -279, "yearLabel": "279 BCE (Zhaoxiang year 28)", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Amnestied persons under Qin penal authority relocated to Yan and Deng; their number and household origins are not supplied by the annual entry" ], "settlers": [ "Qin authorities and the army led by Bai Qi; amnestied persons placed in the captured territory" ], "evidence": "Shiji, Basic Annals of Qin, year 28; scholarly discussion of penal relocation by Anthony J. Barbieri-Low and military logistics by Kiyoshi Miyake", "story": "In 279 BCE, the twenty-eighth year of King Zhaoxiang, Bai Qi attacked Chu and captured Yan and Deng. The Shiji records the pardoning of guilty persons and their relocation there in the same annual entry. The two towns belong to this joined account of capture and placement. Anthony J. Barbieri-Low explains that qiān, the verb used for the relocation, carries a punitive sense in penal and deportation contexts, even when a person’s sentence had been commuted. In discussing Qin amnesty relocations, he leaves open whether convicts could volunteer or were selected by officials. Kiyoshi Miyake interprets the settlement of criminals along the Han River campaign as support for military logistics. That is his reconstruction of their role; the annal itself records relocation without specifying their duties.", "contested": "The annal supplies an annual date, not the duration of residence or a relocation timetable. It gives no count of the people moved or account of the captured towns’ residents sufficient to measure their removal or replacement. Rang and Nanyang occur in separate preceding annual entries; Ying’s capture follows in year 29. Miyake’s English prose misaligns the preceding Rang and Nanyang years with the Chinese annal quoted in his footnote, although both place Yan and Deng in year 28. No continuing cohort across these places is established here.", "note": "The inherited profile shows government direction as a partial-evidence range; the other seven traits lack sufficient evidence for solid point displays. Imported unfree labor remains unknown because its applicability gate is unresolved, despite the recorded penal status of the incomers. This is not a finding that the relocation was voluntary or that no compelled labor occurred.", "placeGloss": "Yan and Deng in the Qin–Chu frontier campaign. The joined annal does not locate the movers’ households or provide their routes.", "sources": [ "v7_qin_yandeng_shiji", "v7_qin_yandeng_barbieri", "v7_qin_yandeng_miyake" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The consulted event passages do not establish relocation origins, exact receiving sites or historical tract boundaries. No coordinates are borrowed from the separate Rang or Nanyang cases, and the two towns are not collapsed into an invented central point." }, { "id": "medieval-umayyad-conquest-iberia-711-716", "name": "Umayyad conquest of Iberia and early consolidation", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "711–c. 716 CE (approximate conquest/consolidation boundary)", "periods": [ { "start": 711, "end": 716, "yearLabel": "711–c. 716 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Communities under Visigothic rule, including people killed, captured or driven to flight; residents who remained under new rulers" ], "settlers": [ "Arab and Berber troops under Umayyad commanders Tariq ibn Ziyad, Musa ibn Nusayr and Abd al-Aziz ibn Musa; local rulers negotiating submission" ], "evidence": "The Chronicle of 754 in modern translation, and Daniel G. König’s study and translation of the transmitted Treaty of Tudmir; UNESCO supplies a modern Toledo reference coordinate", "story": "Tariq’s forces crossed from North Africa into Iberia in 711. Musa followed in 712, and his son Abd al-Aziz governed from about 714 until his assassination around 716. The Chronicle of 754 describes the defeat of King Roderic and violent submissions during the advance. It describes Musa’s advance to Toledo, the killing of nobles, captivity and people fleeing to the mountains. In the southeast, a treaty attributed to Abd al-Aziz and the local ruler Tudmir, also called Theodemir, is dated April 713. Its transmitted terms promise protection from killing, captivity and separation of families, and protection for churches and religious practice, conditional on submission and tribute. These are promises made in a regional agreement, rather than a record of how every community was treated. König describes a conquest in which negotiated relationships existed alongside resistance broken by force.", "contested": "The treaty survives in accounts written centuries later, with differences in city lists and obligations. König discusses doubts about the transmitted wording while treating an early submission agreement as plausible. He also identifies the Chronicle’s Theodemir passages as interpolations, so those passages cannot simply be counted as independent contemporary confirmation. The Chronicle’s account of devastation is rhetorical and supplies no measured peninsula-wide death or displacement total. The approximate endpoint around 716 marks this early conquest and consolidation episode; it does not establish that every district was subdued by then.", "note": "The profile retains the existing judgments for Government direction and Legal and property machinery. The other six traits have insufficient evidence for solid point displays, including Imported unfree labor, whose applicability remains unknown. Uncertainty about the extent of violence or population change does not negate the recorded killings, captivity and flight.", "placeGloss": "The point is UNESCO’s modern heritage reference for Toledo, one city named in the conquest account. The wider event includes other Iberian conquest and submission zones, including Tudmir’s southeastern territory.", "sources": [ "v7_iberia_chronicle754", "v7_iberia_konig_tudmir", "v7_iberia_toledo_reference" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Toledo (modern heritage reference)", "lat": 39.856944444444444, "lon": -4.024444444444445 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped", "geometryExplanation": "A city reference point provides orientation. It does not locate an execution, trace an army’s journey or define the conquered territory. No modern national border, treaty-city polygon or flight route is used." }, { "id": "af-sao-tome-plantation-slavery", "name": "São Tomé and Príncipe: plantation settlement and enslaved labor", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "island", "dates": "1493–1876 (settlement to emancipation transition)", "periods": [ { "start": 1493, "end": 1876, "yearLabel": "1493–1876", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Enslaved Africans transported from mainland societies to the islands, including people from Benin, Kongo and Angola; early settlement also included transported convicts and Jewish children forcibly separated from their families" ], "settlers": [ "Portuguese crown and colonial officials, settlers, merchants and plantation owners; the islands’ landowning and slaveholding elite also included people of mixed descent and free Africans" ], "evidence": "Gerhard Seibert’s historical studies; Cruz, Thomas and Ceita’s study of early sugar plantations; Benjamin Moran’s 1876 diplomatic report of emancipation legislation", "story": "The Portuguese colonized São Tomé and Príncipe when the islands were uninhabited. Effective settlement of São Tomé began under Álvaro de Caminha in 1493; settlement of Príncipe began shortly after 1500. The settlers included convicts and Jewish children forcibly separated from their parents, alongside some volunteers. Africans brought from Benin and later Kongo and Angola were enslaved in households, food production and sugar plantations. Crown land grants helped establish the estates. Sugarcane fields are documented in 1506, and two mills were operating by 1517. Enslaved people escaped into São Tomé’s forested south, where communities developed beyond colonial control. The islands’ society also included free Africans and people of mixed descent who owned land and enslaved people. The early sugar economy declined, and sugar production disappeared during the seventeenth century. Domestic slavery and the slave trade continued while much agriculture shifted to subsistence and provisioning ships. Coffee and cocoa brought a renewed plantation economy in the nineteenth century, initially using enslaved labor. Emancipation followed several legal and local steps. Seibert describes plantation workers demanding immediate freedom after the 1875 emancipation law and Governor Gregório Ribeiro yielding to that demand. In March 1876, the American diplomat Benjamin Moran reported a new law, proclaimed by the king on 3 February, that released people still classed as freedmen and apprentices from their remaining service obligations. Plantation owners subsequently relied on contract workers; Seibert describes contracts extended without consent and coercive conditions continuing beyond the emancipation transition.", "contested": "The dates encompass different phases of island colonization and coerced labor, not continuous sugar production or an unchanged labor regime. The 1493 start belongs to São Tomé, not both islands simultaneously. Seibert’s account of local emancipation following the 1875 law and Moran’s report of accelerated legal emancipation in 1876 describe different actions; their exact relationship is not established here. The 1876 law took effect upon publication in the province, whose date is not supplied in Moran’s dispatch. Its royal proclamation date does not establish the provincial publication date. The endpoint does not mean all forced labor ended in 1876. No total for people removed across the entire period is asserted.", "note": "All eight traits retain their supported-point displays from the frozen scientific release. These are inherited analytical judgments, not population percentages. The inherited Settler replacement family label does not establish that an indigenous island population was replaced: the documented forced movement brought people from elsewhere to previously uninhabited islands.", "placeGloss": "São Tomé and Príncipe in the Gulf of Guinea. The sources name mainland regions from which enslaved people were brought, but this case does not reconstruct individual capture sites or sea routes.", "sources": [ "v7_sao_tome_seibert_2013", "v7_sao_tome_seibert_2015", "v7_sao_tome_cruz_2023", "v7_sao_tome_moran_1876" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "No route, capture-site point or plantation boundary is drawn. The named islands and source regions identify the setting; the broad event spans changing places and populations, and the Praia Melão site cannot stand in for all of them." }, { "id": "prospective-gr-volscian-circeii-takeover-early-fifth-century", "name": "Circeii under Volscian control (source-qualified)", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "early fifth century BCE (precise capture year unresolved)", "periods": [ { "start": -500, "end": -500, "yearLabel": "Early fifth century BCE; precise year unresolved", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "orderingAnchorOnly": true, "orderingAnchorExplanation": "The numeric−500 is a playback ordering coordinate only, not an asserted capture date. Frozen start and end remain null." } ], "displaced": [ "Roman colonists and other residents of Circeii; the accounts disagree over expulsion and continued residence" ], "settlers": [ "Volscian forces; the tradition assigns their command to the Roman exile Coriolanus, whose role is unresolved" ], "evidence": "Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Plutarch give different accounts of Circeii’s surrender or capture; Monica Chiabà assesses the literary tradition", "story": "In Monica Chiabà’s reconstruction, the Coriolanus tradition may preserve a Volscian takeover of Circeii in the early fifth century BCE. What happened to the town’s residents differs sharply between the accounts. Livy reports that the Roman colonists were expelled and the town handed to the Volscians.\n\nDionysius describes Roman colonists living alongside native residents. In his account, the townspeople opened the gates as the Volscian army approached. Nobody was killed or expelled; the commander took clothing, a month’s provisions and money, then left a small garrison to guard the town and prevent rebellion. Plutarch describes Circeii’s voluntary surrender without harm.", "contested": "These are competing accounts of the same takeover, not evidence of an expulsion followed by peaceful resettlement. Chiabà considers it probable that Plutarch drew much of his Life of Coriolanus from Dionysius, and discusses contradictions and anachronistic invention in the early Roman tradition. The exact capture year, Coriolanus’s role and the population outcome remain unresolved. The killings and enslavement described at other towns in the surrounding narratives cannot be assigned to Circeii.", "note": "All eight profile traits retain insufficient-evidence status. Imported unfree labor remains unknown because its applicability gate is unknown. The inherited profile does not resolve the conflicting accounts of the residents’ fate.", "placeGloss": "Circeii is the coastal Latium town discussed by Chiabà in connection with the Circeo promontory and San Felice Circeo. Livy’s displayed English text spells it Cerceii.", "sources": [ "v7_circeii_chiaba", "v7_circeii_livy", "v7_circeii_dionysius", "v7_circeii_plutarch" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The readings identify the town but supply no assessed coordinate for this takeover, garrison, displaced people or territory. An attempted scholarly gazetteer lookup did not yield usable location data. No route or historical footprint is reconstructed." }, { "id": "medieval-kitakami-campaigns-fortified-administration-774-811", "name": "Kitakami campaigns and fortified administration", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "774–811 CE (campaign sequence with reversals)", "periods": [ { "start": 774, "end": 811, "yearLabel": "774–811 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Emishi communities in the Mutsu and Kitakami frontier; resident farmers driven from Taga during the 780 rebellion" ], "settlers": [ "Japanese imperial court, expeditionary forces and provincial officials; local Emishi leaders incorporated into court administration" ], "evidence": "Karl F. Friday’s study of the court campaigns and the Morioka City museum’s English exhibition guide; court chronicles are read through these modern accounts", "story": "In 774 the Japanese imperial court ordered a military campaign against Emishi resistance in the northeast. Successive expeditions met defeats as well as victories. Friday describes an imperial assault on the Emishi village of Toyama that drove people out of their strongholds and off the surrounding cliffs. In 780, Iji no Azumaro led a rebellion, killed provincial officials and attacked Taga, routing its garrison and forcing resident farmers to flee. The army sent against the rebels broke up in 781 without a decisive result.\n\nThe court also extended its presence through fortified administrative centers and local leaders. The Morioka museum dates Isawa’s fortress to 802 and Shiwa’s to 803, describing them as combined military and administrative facilities. Its account says recent excavations suggest that Shiwa’s Emishi accepted the construction while retaining their own power. Friday argues that continued fortification and the incorporation of Emishi leaders through ranks, titles and local office accounted for more of the court’s territorial gains than its large expeditions.\n\nIn 805 the court reconsidered the burden of the wars and construction of the new capital and ordered them halted. It nevertheless commissioned a final campaign in 811 and then declared the Emishi pacified. Friday treats this as a change in official policy and outlook rather than completed control: Emishi communities retained a distinct identity, and local Emishi leadership remained part of the administration.", "contested": "The museum describes the 801 campaign as a conquest of the Kitakami basin north of Isawa. Friday emphasizes the scarcity of details for the later campaigns and argues that much of the northeast was no more firmly controlled after the wars than before. The court’s declaration is therefore not treated here as uniform conquest, population replacement or the disappearance of Emishi identity. The museum describes Emishi as a political category and records differing local relationships with the state. Its Ooshima evidence chiefly concerns the middle ninth to early tenth centuries, after this episode; it cannot be backdated to 774–811. Neither the consulted campaign account nor the local archaeological guide supplies a complete displaced-population count or replacement share.", "note": "Government direction retains a supported point in the inherited profile. The other seven traits have insufficient evidence for solid point displays, including Imported unfree labor, whose applicability remains unknown. The campaign period is a connected sequence with reversals, not a claim of continuous fighting or one 37-year migration. The earlier Mutsu reorganization and 725 transfer remain separate events.", "placeGloss": "The account concerns the Mutsu and Kitakami frontier, including Taga, Isawa and Shiwa. Named places do not define a conquered territory or a measured population movement.", "sources": [ "v7_kitakami_friday_1997", "v7_kitakami_morioka_exhibition" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The consulted sources name forts and localities, but this packet has not verified coordinates for a source-qualified marker, a conquest boundary or a relocation route. The museum’s location figures are orientation aids, not a measured campaign or displacement map. No marker or route is drawn." }, { "id": "eu-highland-clearances", "name": "Scottish Highland and Island Clearances", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "c. 1750–1886", "periods": [ { "start": 1750, "end": 1886, "yearLabel": "c. 1750–1886", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Highland and Island tenants, crofters and cottars affected by eviction, relocation and pressure on access to land" ], "settlers": [ "Estate landlords and managers; commercial sheep farmers took larger holdings" ], "evidence": "Scottish History Society overview and National Records of Scotland’s guide to the Napier Commission records", "story": "From around 1750, estate reorganization for higher rents consolidated small holdings into larger farms, many let for sheep. Evicted tenants often received smaller, poorer crofts. In the first wave, beginning in the 1780s, some owners moved tenants to coastal plots for fishing and kelp work. Others expelled them from their estates.\n\nFor the Sutherland estates in 1809–1821, the Scottish History Society reports nearly 15,000 people relocated, with interior land turned over to sheep and crofts established along the coast. It describes violent evictions and resistance, and cautions that Sutherland was atypical.\n\nAfter 1825, falling prices and the decline of kelp employment deepened hardship. The potato failures of 1836–1837 and 1846–1848 added subsistence crises. Some landlords evicted poor tenants and sometimes financed emigration.\n\nLand protest in the early 1880s brought crofters’ grievances before the Napier Commission, appointed in 1883. The Crofters’ Holdings (Scotland) Act followed in 1886, providing tenure protection and machinery for determining crofters’ rents.", "contested": "The case follows a regional transformation through differing local phases, not a single removal operation. Sutherland’s figure is not a total for the Highlands and Islands, and emigration cannot all be classified as forced removal. The 1886 endpoint marks legislation, not the restoration of all lost land. Much Napier testimony was retrospective; the surviving estate returns cover only part of the region.", "note": "The eight-trait profile retains the accepted release’s judgments, including its zero for imported unfree labor. These are ordinal analytical values, not population percentages. The two sources used for this narrative do not recertify the entire profile.", "placeGloss": "The Highlands and Islands of Scotland; Sutherland is one estate example, while the 1880s protests included Skye, Lewis, Tiree and western Sutherland.", "sources": [ "v7_highlands_shs_clearances", "v7_highlands_nrs_napier" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The readings describe dispersed estates, townships and coastal relocations without an assessed coordinate set or a single clearance boundary. No regional center, removal route or overseas destination is inferred from those place names." }, { "id": "af-rwanda-tutsi-expulsions", "name": "Anti-Tutsi violence, exile and blocked return in Rwanda", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1959–1973 (successive waves; exile continued)", "periods": [ { "start": 1959, "end": 1973, "yearLabel": "1959–1973", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Tutsi people killed or forced to flee Rwanda in successive outbreaks of violence" ], "settlers": [ "Participants in anti-Tutsi violence; Rwandan authorities restricting return; Tutsi refugees seeking refuge in neighboring countries" ], "evidence": "UNHCR’s historical account of the 1959–1963 exile and Human Rights Watch’s retrospective account of the 1959–1966 and 1973 waves", "story": "Outbreaks of violence forced Tutsi people to flee Rwanda between 1959 and 1966 and again in 1973. Human Rights Watch’s World Report 1992 describes tens of thousands massacred and several hundred thousand forced into exile across those outbreaks. It identifies the refugees’ main countries of residence as Zaire, Burundi, Uganda and Tanzania.\n\nExile continued long after the attacks. UNHCR describes the refugees from the 1959–1963 crisis as denied repatriation for the next three decades. Human Rights Watch records that President Juvénal Habyarimana’s government initially opposed return on the grounds of limited national resources. By the report’s 1991 context, he had said refugees were welcome to return, but no significant number had done so. A declared welcome had not yet produced substantial repatriation.", "contested": "These dates bound successive outbreaks, not one continuous expulsion or a claim that exile ended in 1973. Human Rights Watch’s estimate of 400,000–700,000 Tutsi exiles concerns the population living in exile in its 1991 account; it is not a count newly removed in a single outbreak or a measured 1959–1973 total. Its broad estimates of killings and forced exile are not a complete household or property-loss record. The later return-policy statement qualifies an absolute claim that return was always forbidden, without establishing that return was safe or widely achieved. This case does not include the 1990–1994 wartime cohorts, the 1994 genocide or the later Hutu refugee exodus. Responsibility for attacks and official exclusion is not assigned collectively to every member of an ethnic group, and refugee status does not establish participation in the RPF.", "note": "The inherited family is Expulsion or flight without replacement. All eight traits retain their existing supported-point displays, including the zero for Imported unfree labor. These are the frozen release’s profile values, not new estimates derived from the refugee totals. No population replacement share is inferred from those totals.", "placeGloss": "Rwanda is the place of removal. Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), Burundi, Uganda and Tanzania are the neighboring countries of refuge named in the account; they are not a claim about particular camps, routes or a successor-settlement project.", "sources": [ "v7_rwanda_early_exile_unhcr", "v7_rwanda_early_exile_hrw_1992" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The sources identify Rwanda and neighboring countries of refuge, but the consulted evidence does not establish verified departure points, camps or routes for these early waves. No country centroid is substituted for a refugee location, and no marker or route is drawn." }, { "id": "medieval-danelaw-scandinavian-settlement-england", "name": "Scandinavian conquest and settlement in the Danelaw", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "865–954 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 865, "end": 954, "yearLabel": "865–954 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "English landholders and communities in Northumbria, East Anglia and parts of Mercia, where conquest and settlement changed rule and control of land" ], "settlers": [ "Scandinavian raiding groups and their leaders; settlers, families, artisans and merchants associated with the armies and later migration" ], "evidence": "Chronicle accounts of conquest and land division, assessed alongside Ben Raffield’s historical and archaeological study and Yumi Yokota’s analysis of place names", "story": "Scandinavian armies conquered much of Northumbria, East Anglia and Mercia during campaigns beginning in 865. The Great Army brought together allied raiding groups rather than the forces of one Scandinavian state. Its members included families, artisans and merchants as well as combatants. Settlement took place in an already inhabited landscape.\n\nThe Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records Halfdan (Healfden in the Ingram translation) dividing Northumbrian land in 876, after which the newcomers cultivated it. Its entry for 877 describes the army sharing out part of Mercia and leaving part to Ceolwulf; the 880 entry records settlement and land division in East Anglia. These accounts identify changes in possession and use of land without counting the settlers or the residents who lost holdings.\n\nPolitical control and settlement varied by locality. Raffield argues that the evidence supports fragmented centers of power, with relationships between urban leaders and rural communities often unclear. Scandinavian newcomers and English residents also developed mixed cultural practices. In the tenth century, West Saxon and Mercian rulers extended their control over the areas of Scandinavian settlement. The Chronicle’s 954 entry records the Northumbrians expelling Eric and King Edred taking rule.", "contested": "The name Danelaw is used here for areas of Scandinavian settlement and influence, not a single state with fixed borders. Raffield questions the later territorial model and treats his interpretation as preliminary. Place names reveal contact and influence, but Yokota shows why they cannot directly identify the ancestry or number of a ninth-century population: names could be adopted by English speakers and created long after the first settlements. The chronology also depends on the edition. Raffield dates the Great Army’s arrival to 865; the Ingram/Giles compilation places its arrival in East Anglia under 866. The land-division dates above follow that compilation, while Raffield places some movements a year earlier.", "note": "The interval follows the conquest and settlement sequence through the political change of 954. That endpoint does not date the end of Scandinavian migration or the disappearance of settlers and their descendants. The land-division accounts do not establish a region-wide expulsion or a replacement share.", "placeGloss": "Northumbria, East Anglia and Mercia were inhabited English kingdoms. The case concerns changing areas of Scandinavian settlement within them, including York and settlements farther south.", "sources": [ "v7_danelaw_raffield_2020", "v7_danelaw_chronicle_ingram_giles", "v7_danelaw_yokota_2004" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The sources describe changing regional areas and debate the dating and interpretation of individual sites. They do not supply one verified settlement boundary or relocation route for this episode. No representative coordinate has been verified for the case, so no marker or route is drawn." }, { "id": "mena-safavid-georgian-deportations-1614-1616", "name": "Safavid campaigns and Georgian deportations to Iran", "region": "West Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1614–1616", "periods": [ { "start": 1614, "end": 1616, "yearLabel": "1614–1616", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Georgian civilians in Kartli and Kakheti, including women and boys taken captive and deported to Iran" ], "settlers": [ "Shah Abbas I and Safavid forces and officials; Georgian rulers, nobles and resistance forces" ], "evidence": "Hitchins’s account of the Georgian campaigns, Perry’s account of deportation and resettlement, and Matthee’s reading of contemporary accounts", "story": "Shah Abbas I sent a campaign against Kartli and Kakheti in 1614. When nobles in Kakheti revolted in 1615, his troops ravaged the country. The campaigns brought killings and forced removal to Iran. Rudi Matthee identifies the punitive Georgian campaign of 1616 as an episode of mass killing, capture and enslavement, including women and boys.\n\nDeportation also redirected people toward places the shah wanted to develop. John R. Perry records a transfer to Farahabad on the Caspian in 1615. That group mixed peasants from Karabakh and Shirvan who had fled to Georgia with people from Georgia and Ganja described as rebels. It cannot supply a Georgian-only total.\n\nIn his discussion of the wider campaign and its aftermath, Keith Hitchins describes an apparent plan to remove or kill the Kakhetians and settle Qizilbash and other Turkmen tribes in their country. This is evidence of a replacement plan, not a record of its full completion. His wider account of Georgians in Iran distinguishes agricultural settlement from military and royal-household service, and notes that some nobles entered service voluntarily. Those broader histories do not identify every destination or fate of the people removed in 1614–1616.", "contested": "The scale of killing and deportation is uncertain. Matthee attributes large totals to a chronicler; they are reported estimates, not a census of the people removed in this event. The retained Hitchins text contains a malformed deportation number, which is not used. Perry’s mixed Farahabad group and his estimate for deportations across the Safavid period cannot be counted as this case’s Georgian population. A missionary report from Gori in 1629, discussed by Matthee, looks back over a wider period of devastation; it does not extend this event to 1629. The Armenian deportation and New Julfa program of 1604–1605 are a separate case. Later fighting and the broader incorporation of Georgians into Safavid society do not demonstrate completed population replacement, universal assimilation or an end to Georgian resistance.", "note": "The family and all eight traits are inherited unchanged. Government direction and Imported unfree labor retain supported-point status; the other six traits remain insufficient-evidence displays. The inherited zero for Imported unfree labor is not a new conclusion that these campaigns involved no captivity, enslavement or compelled movement.", "placeGloss": "Kartli and Kakheti are the Georgian source territories. Farahabad is the Caspian destination named for Perry’s mixed 1615 transfer. Hitchins places a Georgian agricultural community in Faridan in Isfahan province within a wider settlement history, without assigning it a measured share of this event’s deportees. Abbas is rendered ʿAbbās in the sources; Qizilbash appears as qezelbāš.", "sources": [ "v7_georgian_hitchins", "v7_georgian_perry", "v7_georgian_matthee_2025" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The consulted accounts name source territories and several kinds of destination, but do not provide verified coordinates, routes, event-specific destination shares or a completed replacement footprint. No centroid or schematic arrow is substituted for a deportee location; no marker or route is proposed." }, { "id": "af-nubian-aswan-dam-displacement", "name": "Nubian displacement by the Aswan dams", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1902–1964", "periods": [ { "start": 1902, "end": 1964, "yearLabel": "1902–1964", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Egyptian and Sudanese Nubian communities whose homes and land were flooded or made uninhabitable" ], "settlers": [ "Dam-building and resettlement authorities in Egypt and Sudan" ], "evidence": "AUC Social Research Center project history, Robert A. Fernea’s ethnographic account, and Negm-el-Din Mohammed Sherif’s account of Sudanese Nubia", "story": "The first Aswan Dam, built in 1902, and its later heightenings flooded homes and farmland in Egyptian Nubia. Robert A. Fernea describes unequal effects: northern communities rebuilt on higher, rocky ground, while southern communities retained more agricultural land. Loss of productive land also pushed people toward work in cities. These earlier adjustments were distinct from the compulsory resettlement brought by the High Dam.\n\nIn Egypt, the 1964 relocation took Nubians to the Kom Ombo area north of Aswan. The American University in Cairo’s Social Research Center describes New Nubia resettlement as compulsory and reports considerable stress despite plans to preserve self-sufficiency and identity. The government provided housing, utilities and irrigated land for sugar cane. Those provisions do not establish that displaced households recovered all they had lost.\n\nThe reservoir also submerged homeland in Sudanese Nubia. Sherif, a Sudan Antiquities Service official involved in the salvage campaign, describes this loss alongside the rescue of monuments. AUC’s project history records Sudanese Nubian resettlement on land irrigated by the Khashm el-Girba dam; it describes a researcher’s later visit there in 1969. This is a different receiving area from Egyptian Kom Ombo.\n\nNubian life continued after relocation. AUC researchers documented surviving culture as well as social change, and Fernea described the longstanding importance of kinship, marriage and language. Writing in 1980, he also reported Egyptian Nubians’ efforts to explore settlement along the new lake. This was a hope for return, not a report of completed restitution.", "contested": "This case includes both Egyptian and Sudanese Nubians across 1902–1964, but the consulted sources provide more detail about Egyptian households and resettlement. The Sudanese receiving-area statement is AUC’s retrospective account; no exact Sudanese removal date or count is established here. Fernea’s 50,000 refers to people actually living in Egyptian Nubia, distinguished from a larger population with homes and family ties there. It is not a combined displaced total for Egypt and Sudan. Earlier voluntary moves near Kom Ombo, labor migration and rebuilding after the old dam must not all be counted as compulsory 1964 relocation. Sherif’s generalized claim of willing acceptance does not demonstrate consent by every household. Cultural continuity and rescued monuments do not establish full restitution, and homeland loss does not mean Nubian culture disappeared. Later research and hopes of return do not extend the plotted event beyond 1964.", "note": "The family and all eight traits are inherited unchanged as supported points. These values are not newly estimated displacement totals, compensation rates or measures of cultural survival. The inherited zeros for Settler implantation and Imported unfree labor do not deny the forced removal of Nubian communities.", "placeGloss": "Kom Ombo is the Egyptian resettlement area north of Aswan. Khashm el-Girba names the Sudanese dam and irrigated receiving area in AUC’s account, which uses several spellings of the name. Old Nubia is a homeland term in these sources, not a verified reservoir boundary.", "sources": [ "v7_nubian_auc", "v7_nubian_fernea", "v7_nubian_sherif" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The sources identify affected river communities and receiving areas, but this authoring pass has not verified household departure points, resettlement coordinates or routes. A heritage-rescue map cannot substitute for displacement geometry, and Kom Ombo cannot stand for Sudanese destinations. No marker, route or inundation polygon is proposed." }, { "id": "medieval-mongol-samarkand-artisan-and-youth-removals", "name": "Mongol capture of Samarkand and removal of artisans and young men", "region": "East & Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1220–c. 1223 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1220, "end": 1223, "yearLabel": "1220–c. 1223 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Samarkand residents selected as craftspeople and young male levies; other residents killed, driven out, ransomed or subjected to further levies" ], "settlers": [ "Chinggis Khan, Mongol forces, his sons and kinsmen, and the officials appointed to administer Samarkand" ], "evidence": "Juvaini’s account in John Andrew Boyle’s translation, Peter Jackson’s historical synthesis, and Ulrike Halbertsma-Herold’s study of imperial workshops", "story": "Mongol forces under Chinggis Khan captured Samarkand in 1220. Juvaini describes a surrender followed by the dismantling of defenses, the forced assembly of residents outside the town, plunder and killing. Some people received protection; others were killed after hiding or during the remaining resistance. The account does not describe the destruction of every inhabitant.\n\nJuvaini reports that 30,000 survivors were selected for their craft skills and distributed among Chinggis Khan’s sons and kinsmen. He gives a similar number for a levy of young men. Some of the levies went with Chinggis Khan to Khorasan and others with his sons to Khwarazm. Remaining survivors were allowed back into the town under a ransom demand. Juvaini also records repeated later levies, without dating each one. These movements took people from the city for the conquerors’ use; the levy destinations do not establish where every artisan was sent.\n\nThe city’s losses continued beyond the initial assault. Jackson relays Changchun’s December 1221 report that the city’s population stood at about a quarter of its former level. That comparison cannot separate deaths from captivity, departure or other causes of depopulation. Later evidence also traces some artisans eastward. Jackson describes about 3,000 artisan households, many from Samarkand, transported to Xunmalin in northern China and mentioned by Rashid al-Din some seventy years later. This mixed household population is not the same measure as Juvaini’s reported number of craftspeople.", "contested": "The figures are transmitted source reports, not audited counts. Jackson questions the reliability of large conquest-era totals and distinguishes killing from later population losses. Halbertsma-Herold’s workshop discussion also includes people from Samarkand and Bukhara; it uses workers where Jackson uses households. Those units cannot be interchanged. Her broader discussion of hereditary service does not establish the fate of every Samarkand captive or descendant. The sources do not provide a complete destination register, a mortality rate, or a share of the original population permanently removed.", "note": "The retained interval is 1220–c. 1223 CE. The capture belongs to 1220, although Boyle’s note corrects the chronicle’s year and questions its precise dating. Later levies are undated in the passage. The approximate endpoint does not date a final Samarkand shipment: Jackson’s note giving an arrival in 1223 concerns artisans from Khwarazm. The later workshop evidence is follow-up context, not another event inside this interval. The family and all eight traits remain inherited; the zero for Imported unfree labor does not mean these removals were voluntary or involved no captive labor.", "placeGloss": "Samarkand (Samarqand in the sources) is the source city. Khorasan and Khwarazm (Khorazm in Boyle’s translation) are the destinations named for levies. Xunmalin is a later eastern workshop location for a mixed population. These are distinct places and evidential contexts, not a single documented route. Chinggis Khan appears as Chingiz-Khan in Boyle’s translation.", "sources": [ "v7_samarkand_juvaini_boyle", "v7_samarkand_jackson", "v7_samarkand_halbertsma_herold" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The sources name the city, levy destinations and a later mixed workshop population, but do not verify coordinates or a single route for this event. No point or line is substituted for an unknown captive location or destination share." }, { "id": "eu-expulsion-jews-spain-1492", "name": "Expulsion of Jews from Castile and Aragon", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1492", "periods": [ { "start": 1492, "end": 1492, "yearLabel": "1492", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Jewish residents of Castile and Aragon who left under the 1492 expulsion order" ], "settlers": [ "The crowns of Castile and Aragon under Isabella and Ferdinand" ], "evidence": "The Alhambra Decree in an English translation hosted by Florida Atlantic University, and Ariel Hessayon’s review of François Soyer’s history of persecution in Portugal", "story": "On 31 March 1492, Isabella and Ferdinand issued the Alhambra Decree, ordering Jewish residents to leave their realms by the end of July. The order covered children and adults, including people born elsewhere. It threatened death and confiscation for those who remained or returned in defiance of the decree. Its stated rationale blamed Jewish contact with Christians for departures from Catholic practice. These were the rulers’ allegations and justification for collective expulsion.\n\nBefore the deadline, the decree promised royal protection and permitted residents to sell or otherwise dispose of movable possessions and real estate. Goods could be taken out by land or sea, subject to restrictions that prohibited exporting gold, silver, coin and other banned items. These provisions describe the legal order. They do not show that everyone received protection or a fair price.\n\nConversion offered a way to remain. Portugal became a refuge for exiles who left: Hessayon reports that many Castilian Jews sold property at discounted prices before paying a substantial entry tax. He also describes restrictions on permanent settlement in Portugal. The number entering Portugal is disputed, and it is not a count of everyone expelled from Castile and Aragon.\n\nSome exiles converted to Christianity and returned to Castile. The later Portuguese expulsions and forced conversions belong to separate events.", "contested": "The decree is evidence of royal commands and penalties, not a record of every local enforcement action. Its sale provisions and confiscation penalties do not establish blanket confiscation of all departing residents’ private property. Hessayon’s account is a scholarly review of Soyer’s book; the book itself was not consulted. The review contrasts very different estimates of arrivals in Portugal and describes some converted return, but it does not establish a comprehensive 1492 expulsion or return total. Its wider diaspora list covers several expulsions and roughly a century and a half. Earlier conversos fleeing the Inquisition, Portuguese actions in 1496–1497 and the removal of Jewish children to São Tomé are not added to this case’s 1492 cohort.", "note": "The family and all eight traits are inherited unchanged. They are ordinal summaries, not percentages of people expelled, property confiscated or return prevented. The Separation from homeland value does not mean that no exile ever returned; the narrative preserves the reported return of some people after conversion.", "placeGloss": "Castile and Aragon are the realms named in the 1492 case. Portugal is a documented destination for part of the expelled population, not a substitute for every exile’s destination. The decree’s place of issue, Granada, is not the departure point for all those displaced.", "sources": [ "v7_spain1492_decree", "v7_spain1492_hessayon" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The sources name the affected realms and describe arrivals in Portugal, but they do not establish a single departure point, a complete route or a bounded expulsion footprint. Granada identifies where the decree was issued, not a common origin of the exiles. The review’s border camps and later ports concern different stages and subsets of movement. No verified event-specific coordinates or historical territorial geometry are supplied here, so no marker, route, polygon or reference registration is proposed." }, { "id": "new-zealand-ngai-tahu-musket-war-invasions", "name": "Northern-iwi invasions of Ngāi Tahu communities and territory", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1827–1837 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1827, "end": 1837, "yearLabel": "1827–1837 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Ngāi Tahu people attacked at Kaikōura, Kaiapohia and Akaroa/Ōnawe, including Tama-i-haranui and his wife and daughter, who were captured" ], "settlers": [ "Ngāti Toa under Te Rauparaha and Te Pēhi Kupe, and northern allies; Captain John Stewart and the brig Elizabeth; Ngāti Tama chief Te Pūoho and his war party; Ngāi Tahu defenders led at Tuturau by Tūhawaiki" ], "evidence": "Basil Keane’s Te Ara account of the South Island battles and Te Pūoho’s final campaign, read with its neighboring sections to distinguish other peoples and earlier movements", "story": "War parties from Ngāti Toa and northern allies attacked Ngāi Tahu communities in a succession of South Island campaigns. Basil Keane’s Te Ara account links Te Rauparaha’s southern ambitions to control of pounamu trade. It places the attack and killing of Ngāi Tahu at Kaikōura after the opening southern campaigns around 1827. A party then went to Kaiapohia pā, where Te Pēhi Kupe was killed while trading for pounamu.\n\nIn 1830, Ngāti Toa persuaded Captain John Stewart to carry them to Akaroa aboard the brig Elizabeth. Tama-i-haranui, also called Te Maiharanui, and his wife and daughter were captured. The account states that he was subsequently tortured and killed; it does not describe every captive’s fate. This attack involved a European captain and ship as well as the invading war party.\n\nNgāti Toa successfully attacked Kaiapohia and then Ōnawe pā at Akaroa in 1831. In its wider southern account, Te Ara describes conquest across much of the South Island, but also records that Ngāi Tahu had acquired muskets and became harder to fight. The campaign sequence included resistance and reversal.\n\nThe final northern war party in this account was led by Ngāti Tama chief Te Pūoho. It traveled from Golden Bay along the West Coast, crossed the Southern Alps and reached Tuturau in Southland in late 1836 or early 1837. Ngāi Tahu leader Tūhawaiki assembled a force and surprised the party. Te Pūoho was killed and the others were taken prisoner.", "contested": "This short account establishes attacks, killing, capture and pā conquest, but does not measure displacement, settlement or a lasting population change across the island. Its statement about the extent of conquest does not establish permanent whole-island replacement or a formal land-title regime. It supplies neither complete casualty and captive totals nor the civilian and combatant composition of those affected. The Elizabeth passage identifies transport of the invading party to Akaroa; it does not provide a complete route for the captives.", "note": "The 1827–1837 interval is an approximate outer window: Te Ara begins the southern sequence around 1827 and places the Tuturau encounter in late 1836 or early 1837. This case concerns its Ngāi Tahu sequence. The earlier attacks on Rangitāne and Ngāti Kuia, the 1822–1824 Kāpiti migration and consolidation, and the 1835 invasion of the Moriori homeland are distinct events. The family and all eight traits remain inherited. The insufficient-evidence displays and Imported unfree labor’s not-applicable status do not negate the documented violence or capture.", "placeGloss": "Kaikōura, Kaiapohia, Akaroa/Ōnawe and Tuturau are the named locations in the Ngāi Tahu sequence. Golden Bay, the West Coast and the Southern Alps describe Te Pūoho’s approach. These places do not define one continuously occupied territory or a complete captive route. The source spelling Kaiapohia is retained.", "sources": [ "v7_ngai_tahu_keane" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The consulted account names several attacks and a broad approach, but supplies no verified coordinates, common settlement footprint or complete captive route. No point or schematic line is substituted for those unknowns." }, { "id": "af-serengeti-ngorongoro-maasai-evictions", "name": "Maasai conservation evictions from Serengeti, Ngorongoro and Loliondo", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1951–present", "periods": [ { "start": 1951, "end": 2026, "yearLabel": "1951–present", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Maasai pastoralists losing homes, grazing land and access to cultural sites in northern Tanzania", "Existing Msomera residents losing land to the government’s resettlement program" ], "settlers": [ "British colonial authorities in Tanganyika; the Tanzanian government, conservation authorities and security forces" ], "evidence": "Human Rights Watch’s July 2024 investigation, a December 2024 dispatch by Oryem Nyeko, and its World Report 2026 account of events in 2025", "story": "British colonial authorities declared Serengeti a national park in 1951. Human Rights Watch’s historical account connects the removal of communities from the park with the creation of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in 1959. Ngorongoro was intended as a permanent homeland where Maasai pastoralists would coexist with wildlife. Over subsequent decades, conservation authorities restricted cultivation and access to grazing, water and cultural sites. Earlier resettlement attempts also met with return or onward movement.\n\nThe recent operations were distinct. In Loliondo, north of the conservation area, the government moved in June 2022 to turn village land into a game reserve. Human Rights Watch reported security forces using tear gas and rubber bullets against protesters and bystanders, followed by further violence and destruction of homes. In the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, a separate government program began moving residents to Msomera village in June 2022.\n\nAuthorities described the Ngorongoro relocation as voluntary. Human Rights Watch’s investigation found that cuts to education and health services, limits on movement and grazing, and abuses by conservation rangers pressured residents to leave. Interviewees described inadequate consultation, and some women were excluded when a male household head registered the family. These findings concern the reported conditions and decision process; registration alone did not demonstrate agreement by every household member.\n\nAt Msomera, the government provided houses, land, cash assistance and infrastructure. Relocated residents nevertheless described housing that did not fit their families, compensation that did not cover their resettlement costs, and difficulties obtaining water. Msomera already had pastoralist residents, including Maasai families. They reported that authorities allocated land they occupied or used to the incoming households, without adequate consultation, and threatened people who questioned the process. Government officials, surveyors and contractors directed the land allocation and construction.\n\nLater reports qualify the 2024 account. In December 2024, Nyeko reported an announcement of two investigation committees, an earlier pledge to restore services, school-dormitory funding and removal of a vehicle fee for residents. Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2026, describing events in 2025, reported that the committees launched in February and that some restrictions were lifted pending their investigations. These steps did not establish complete restoration of services or land.", "contested": "The inherited case covers conservation displacement from 1951 onward; it does not make every removal a 1951 event or combine Loliondo and Ngorongoro-to-Msomera into one operation. Human Rights Watch’s 2024 investigation used interviews conducted in 2022–2023, including affected residents and a government administrator. Its interview sample was not a population census. The report gives a government estimate of 3,010 people in 551 households relocated from Ngorongoro to Msomera as of January 2023. A plan for about 82,000 people to leave by 2027 and a census population estimate of 100,793 measure different things; neither is an already-removed total. Housing and assistance do not establish universal consent or full compensation. Loss of access to cultural sites does not mean Maasai culture has disappeared. The later update describes 2025 as reported in World Report 2026; it does not verify conditions in September 2026 or completion of the planned relocation.", "note": "The family and all eight traits are inherited unchanged. These ordinal summaries are not percentages of residents relocated, shares consenting or measures of cultural survival. The incoming households at Msomera and the residents already there are described separately; this authoring does not recode the profile from their shared Maasai identity.", "placeGloss": "Serengeti, the Ngorongoro Conservation Area and Loliondo are distinct parts of the history. Msomera is a receiving village in Handeni district, Tanga region. Its existing residents are part of the relocation’s consequences, not inhabitants of empty land awaiting settlement.", "sources": [ "v7_maasai_hrw2024", "v7_maasai_nyeko2024", "v7_maasai_hrw2026" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The sources identify affected areas and Msomera as a receiving settlement, but this pass has not verified event-specific coordinates, departure points or displacement boundaries. The roughly 600-kilometer distance reported for Ngorongoro-to-Msomera does not identify an actual travel route. Loliondo operations and earlier Serengeti removals cannot be represented by that single movement. No marker, route, polygon or reference registration is proposed." }, { "id": "mena-arab-conquest-egypt-639-646", "name": "Arab-Muslim conquest of Egypt and establishment of Fusṭāṭ", "region": "Middle East & North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "late 639/early 640–646 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 639, "end": 646, "yearLabel": "late 639/early 640–646 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Egyptian residents subjected to warfare, exactions and flight; civilians sheltering in Alexandria, distinct from withdrawing Byzantine troops" ], "settlers": [ "Arab-Muslim forces under ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ and the new garrison authorities" ], "evidence": "John of Nikiu’s translated chronicle, modern historical studies, and a dated supply receipt described by the Austrian National Library", "story": "Arab-Muslim forces under ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ entered Egypt in late 639 or early 640. The Byzantine fortress of Babylon surrendered in 641; Alexandria was handed over under an agreement providing for Byzantine withdrawal in 642. A Byzantine expedition briefly recovered Alexandria in 645–646 before the Arab reconquest. These military reversals form the event’s closing phase.\n\nThe conquest involved violence, coercion and negotiated submission. John of Nikiu describes bloodshed at Fayum, the binding and dispossession of Roman magistrates, forced supplies, and residents abandoning possessions and fleeing to Alexandria. His sweeping language about flight is not a count of Egypt’s population. His account of the Alexandria agreement allows Byzantine troops to leave by sea with their property, while promising protection for Christian churches and allowing Jews to remain. It also describes angry resistance to the agreement among Alexandrians. Negotiation does not establish unanimous consent or universal fulfillment of its terms.\n\nIn that treaty sequence, John reports that Egyptians sheltering in Alexandria asked the patriarch Cyrus to secure permission for them to return to their cities as subjects of the conquerors. Cyrus negotiated according to their request. This is evidence of a request and negotiation, not a measured return rate. The same account describes the retention or appointment of local officials and further demands for supplies and canal labor.\n\nFusṭāṭ became a garrison and administrative center. Bruning, de Jong and Sijpesteijn describe the reuse and alteration of Byzantine structures around Babylon, and the mobilization of workmen and building materials through local administrators. Sijpesteijn distinguishes this urban establishment from a general redistribution of rural estates: her study reports housing plots allocated to Muslim army leaders around Fusṭāṭ and Alexandria, and Arab soldiers moving into houses vacated by departing Byzantines in Alexandria. In the sources she reviews, conquest-era rural confiscations are not recorded. That qualified finding does not establish that no individual resident lost land.\n\nThe new rulers also drew supplies from Egypt. The Austrian National Library identifies a Greek-Arabic receipt dated 25 April 643 for 65 sheep. This is one documented transaction, not a population measure. Continued administration, urban settlement and military exactions can therefore be described without asserting a countrywide replacement of Egypt’s residents.", "contested": "The chronicle’s translated, textually mediated account and its confessional language require attribution. Modern studies also depend partly on overlapping narrative sources. Christides argues that Copts and Melkites were not uniformly opposed political camps; neither group can be assigned one response to the conquest. Sijpesteijn’s note on reports of massacre and exodus after Alexandria’s reconquest raises the possibility of later fiscal-legal fabrication. No casualty total or mass exodus count for that episode is asserted here. The read sources do not establish a national removal, settlement or return rate.", "note": "The frozen interval remains late 639/early 640–646 CE. The refugee request belongs to John’s account of the first Alexandria settlement, not to the 645–646 reconquest; the passage does not separately date the refugees’ return. Later seventh- and eighth-century rural settlement and church changes are outside this case. The inherited family and full eight-trait profile remain unchanged; this narrative does not recertify their scalar values.", "placeGloss": "Babylon here is the Byzantine fortress around which Fusṭāṭ developed in Egypt, not Babylon in Mesopotamia. Alexandria and the Fayum are distinct settings in the account. Fusṭāṭ also appears as Fustat; John of Nikiu is also styled John of Nikiou.", "geometryExplanation": "The read sources identify several cities and a broad conquest area but provide no verified coordinates, shared displacement route or dated occupation polygon. Named places alone do not locate all displaced residents; the consolidated stop therefore has unknown geometry.", "sources": [ "v7_egypt_john_nikiu", "v7_egypt_kennedy", "v7_egypt_christides2016", "v7_egypt_sijpesteijn2009", "v7_egypt_perf558", "v7_egypt_bruning2022" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "europe-great-wrath-aland-flight", "name": "Russian occupation and flight from Åland during the Great Wrath", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1713–1723", "periods": [ { "start": 1713, "end": 1723, "yearLabel": "1713–1723", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Åland residents who fled to Sweden; communities affected by occupation elsewhere in Finland remain a distinct regional context" ], "settlers": [ "Russian imperial forces and occupation authorities" ], "evidence": "Visit Åland’s historical chronology, with regional context from Rokua Geopark’s account of the Great Wrath", "story": "The Great Wrath was the Russian occupation of Finland during the Great Northern War. Rokua Geopark’s historical account dates the occupation to 1713–1721, when Finland had been part of Sweden. Within this broader episode, Visit Åland’s chronology records devastation by Russian forces in Åland in 1714 and the flight of a majority of the population to Sweden.\n\nThe same Åland chronology places the inhabitants’ return in 1721–1723. Flight and subsequent return are both part of this case. The brief entries give neither an exact number of people who left nor a measure of how many returned. They support displacement followed by return, without establishing that every inhabitant fled or that every refugee came back.\n\nThe wider occupation affected regions differently. Rokua Geopark describes devastation, killings, forced transport to Russia and internal flight in its account of North Ostrobothnia and the surrounding region. These regional experiences provide context for the occupation; they do not establish an Åland death toll or an Åland deportation total. The available Åland entries likewise do not describe a durable incoming settler community replacing the people who fled.", "contested": "Both consulted pages are heritage accounts. Visit Åland provides a short chronology; Rokua Geopark names historical works and records that were not independently read here. Its regional figures cannot be applied to Åland or treated as national totals. The Åland entries do not measure household losses, the extent of property destruction, the completeness of return or lasting changes in landholding.", "note": "The frozen event remains 1713–1723. The broader occupation chronology begins in 1713; the Åland entry dates devastation and flight to 1714, followed by return in 1721–1723. No exact departure day or return rate is inferred. Later occupations are separate events. The original family and every field of the eight-trait profile remain inherited; these brief accounts do not recertify their scalar values.", "placeGloss": "Åland and Sweden are the places named for flight and return. North Ostrobothnia, Oulu and Kainuu belong to Rokua Geopark’s regional context; they are not alternative names for Åland or locations assigned to its refugees.", "geometryExplanation": "The sources identify Åland and Sweden but do not verify departure or landing points, refugee routes, or a dated occupation footprint. A line between modern place centers would imply more precision than these entries provide. The single consolidated stop therefore has unknown geometry.", "sources": [ "v7_aland_visit_history", "v7_aland_rokua_great_wrath" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "am-argentina-chaco-conquest-reducciones", "name": "Argentine conquest and Indigenous confinement in the Chaco", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "strong", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1884–1917", "periods": [ { "start": 1884, "end": 1917, "yearLabel": "1884–1917", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Qom (Toba), Wichí, Moqoit (Mocoví), Pilagá and other peoples of the Argentine Chaco losing access to land and subsistence resources; Napalpí residents were principally Qom and Moqoit" ], "settlers": [ "Argentine army and national and territorial authorities; private landholders, agricultural settlers, timber enterprises and sugar companies" ], "evidence": "Juan and Valeria Iñigo Carrera’s historical account of land dispossession and labor recruitment, and Carlos Salamanca’s account of Napalpí’s formation and constraints on Indigenous life", "story": "Argentine military campaigns and private occupation of land restricted Indigenous access to rivers and hunting grounds in the Chaco. The 1884 campaign reached the southern Chaco and the southern and eastern edges of the central Chaco. Juan and Valeria Iñigo Carrera describe it as a culmination of military expansion, without treating it as the final campaign.\n\nLoss of subsistence land pushed Indigenous people into work for timber enterprises and sugar producers. The sugar industry of Salta and Jujuy recruited people from the central-western Chaco, including Qom, Wichí and Pilagá communities. Labor demand was seasonal and had grown markedly from the 1880s. The account connects recruitment with violent dispossession; it does not reduce the process to an unrestricted choice of employment.\n\nAfter Rostagno’s 1911 military expedition, the state established the Napalpí reduction in the center-east of what is now Chaco province. A reduction was a settlement administered to concentrate Indigenous residents and discipline their work and movement. Napalpí came under the General Directorate of National Territories and drew people from different parts of the Chaco, principally Qom and Moqoit. Its program promoted wage labor and separation from the forest. Productive establishments surrounded it within a few years as the colonizing frontier advanced.\n\nConfinement did not eliminate movement. Salamanca describes hunting and gathering continuing, residents moving, and spaces in which people could partly escape administrative discipline. He also explains that this openness helped maintain a cheap labor supply for neighboring producers. Continued subsistence practices and mobility coexisted with coercive settlement and exploitation.", "contested": "This case retains the 1884–1917 event window. The sources do not establish 1917 as the end of dispossession, labor coercion or Indigenous movement. They describe different parts of the Argentine Chaco and do not supply a single affected-population or mortality total. Napalpí’s principally Qom and Moqoit population cannot stand for every community in the wider region. The 1924 Napalpí massacre and the major cotton expansion of the 1920s fall outside this window. Salamanca’s note dates an official ban on travel to western sugar mills to 1924; it is not evidence that all such travel was already prohibited by 1917.", "note": "The primary family and complete eight-trait profile are inherited unchanged. The ordinal values are not population shares, a mortality estimate or evidence that every resident experienced the same degree of confinement. Continued mobility does not establish restored land access or unrestricted consent.", "placeGloss": "The Argentine Chaco is the affected region. Napalpí is one state reduction within it; the sugar-producing districts of Salta and Jujuy were labor destinations for people from the central-western Chaco. These are different parts of the process, not one verified route.", "sources": [ "v7_chaco_inigo_carrera", "v7_chaco_salamanca" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The sources locate the broad campaign zones, Napalpí and sugar-producing districts. Salamanca’s maps show a regional location and a later cadastral layout, including the site of the 1924 massacre. They do not establish a georeferenced 1884–1917 confinement boundary or a complete labor-removal route. No verified event-specific point, route or historical polygon is supplied; the world map remains background context." }, { "id": "modern-malayan-emergency-new-villages", "name": "Malayan Emergency forced resettlement into New Villages", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1948–1960", "periods": [ { "start": 1948, "end": 1960, "yearLabel": "1948–1960", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Predominantly rural Chinese residents, including people classified by colonial authorities as squatters and other rural dwellers, forcibly moved into controlled settlements" ], "settlers": [ "British colonial authorities and the Federation of Malaya government directing resettlement; estate and mine employers regrouping labour settlements" ], "evidence": "Rhoderick dhu Renick Jnr’s published extract and exposed notes, Richard Stubbs’s study of competing historical interpretations, and Tom Rice’s commentary on a government resettlement film in the Imperial War Museums catalogue", "story": "During the Malayan Emergency, British colonial authorities and the Federation of Malaya government forcibly moved rural residents into settlements intended to separate them from communist insurgents. The Briggs Plan expanded this policy from 1950. It chiefly affected rural Chinese people, including both those whom officials called squatters and other residents. Their displacement does not establish that they belonged to the Malayan Communist Party or its armed forces.\n\nResettlement proceeded rapidly, alongside the regrouping of labour settlements on rubber estates and at tin mines. The totals describe different categories and dates. Renick’s published extract reports nearly 650,000 people resettled or regrouped into more than 550 new villages. Stubbs contrasts government figures with Kernial Singh Sandhu’s estimate of 385,000 people resettled by the end of 1951, out of a later total of 573,000 in 480 villages. These figures cannot be added together or treated as a single count of forced moves.\n\nThe authorities used settlement, policing and food controls to restrict contact with insurgents. Conditions varied, and rapid relocation did not ensure secure housing, suitable farmland or effective protection. Rice’s catalogue commentary describes the breakdown of a long-established Hakka community at Pulai, with one group resettled three times. At Mawai, an insurgent attack in October 1951 killed four informers and abducted 36 young men; the government then closed the settlement, causing further losses of homes and crops. These examples distinguish the actions of armed groups and officials from the civilian population caught between them.\n\nGovernment publicity presented the new settlements as places of safety and improved services. Rice explains that the 1951 film A New Life – Squatter Resettlement omitted barbed wire and dissatisfaction. Stubbs describes a continuing historical debate: some scholars regard population control under the Briggs Plan as the decisive turning point, while others stress its early failures and the importance of later administration, political change and other factors. Forced relocation is well documented; an account of its success must distinguish policy aims, uneven conditions and disputed explanations of the war’s outcome.", "contested": "The case retains the 1948–1960 Emergency window. It does not imply that every settlement began in 1948, that all coercive controls ended in 1960, or that later conflict belongs to this same interval. Renick’s exposed note dates the Briggs Plan to June 1951, whereas Stubbs and Rice date its implementation in Johore to 1 June 1950. Stubbs also reports conflicting government counts: 450,000 resettled by September 1951 in one retrospective account, and 401,698 in 343 areas by the end of 1951 in another. These are attributed estimates, not interchangeable censuses. Resettled civilians, regrouped estate and mine labourers, detained people and people deported abroad are distinct categories.", "note": "This is a case of coercive state resettlement during counterinsurgency. The complete inherited family and eight-trait profile are unchanged. Their ordinal values are not population percentages or evidence that residents were overseas settlers replacing another population. The film itself and the original records and books cited by the three authors were not independently viewed or read.", "placeGloss": "The case concerns settlements across peninsular Malaya. Johore marks the first phase of the Briggs Plan described here; Mawai and Pulai are separate local examples, not a complete origin-and-destination route.", "sources": [ "v7_malaya_renick", "v7_malaya_stubbs", "v7_malaya_rice" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The sources identify a peninsula-wide program and several settlements, but the reviewed material provides no verified coordinates, historical settlement boundaries or complete removal routes for the 1948–1960 event. A modern place point would not establish the geography of the whole program. No case marker, route or polygon is proposed; the map remains background context." }, { "id": "medieval-norman-conquest-england-harrying", "name": "Norman conquest of England: aristocratic dispossession and the Harrying of the North", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1066-1086", "periods": [ { "start": 1066, "end": 1086, "yearLabel": "1066-1086", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "English landholders who lost lordship or became subordinate tenants; northern English inhabitants affected by famine and flight during the Harrying." ], "settlers": [ "William I and incoming aristocrats, including Count Alan of Brittany and Ilbert de Lacy, who received lordships in England." ], "evidence": "The National Archives explains Domesday’s record of landholding before and after the conquest. Aleksandra McClain examines northern lordships and surviving native subtenants; C. P. Lewis disputes the usual interpretation of the Harrying and Domesday waste.", "story": "William I conquered England in 1066. Landholding was reorganized beneath the king and his tenants-in-chief. In Yorkshire, William gathered estates into compact lordships for leading barons, including Count Alan of Brittany at Richmond and Ilbert de Lacy at Pontefract. The Domesday survey, ordered at Christmas 1085 and carried out in 1086, recorded holdings and resources before and after the conquest. The National Archives gives Odiham in Hampshire as an example: land previously held by Harald was recorded under William.\n\nIn the winter of 1069–70, William campaigned against northern rebels and a Danish invasion force. Lewis’s account identifies famine and a refugee crisis in accounts from Evesham and Beverley, while arguing that the famine was probably localized within the region. The scale and interpretation of the Harrying remain disputed.\n\nThe new lordships did not remove every English landholder. McClain finds many native subtenants in Yorkshire. Alric retained his manor at Upper Hopton between 1066 and 1086, but now held it under Ilbert de Lacy; Godwine at Huddersfield had a similar change of status. Some native subtenants also acquired land they had not held in 1066. These regional records preserve continued landholding within the new hierarchy.", "contested": "Lewis rejects the genocide interpretation of the Harrying and questions the later accounts of Symeon of Durham and Orderic Vitalis, neither an eyewitness. His publisher summary retains severe consequences, famine and refugees. Both Lewis and McClain challenge a direct reading of Domesday waste as physical destruction caused solely by the Harrying; McClain also warns that an absence of recorded villagers does not prove a settlement was empty. These interpretations do not establish a harmless conquest. The sources consulted here do not verify a national land-transfer percentage or a death total.", "note": "This case follows the conquest and landholding changes from 1066 to the 1086 survey. McClain’s evidence from later churches and commemoration extends into the twelfth century; those developments are not dated to this interval. The Lewis citation covers the publisher summary, not the full chapter. The inherited event record names Marcus Meer at the same URL, but the publisher identifies C. P. Lewis. The original record is preserved; the public citation uses the actual byline.", "placeGloss": "England; northern landholding examples from Yorkshire, including Richmond, Pontefract, Upper Hopton and Huddersfield. Odiham is in Hampshire. Evesham and Beverley identify the accounts discussed by Lewis, not a reconstructed refugee route.", "geometryExplanation": "The consulted sources identify places and regional patterns but do not supply an authenticated movement route or a bounded displacement footprint for this combined conquest and landholding event. No coordinates or route are proposed. The Domesday waste distribution is not treated as a map of destruction or depopulation.", "sources": [ "v7_norman_lewis_harrying", "v7_norman_tna_domesday", "v7_norman_mcclain_regional" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "eu-morisco-expulsion", "name": "Expulsion of the Moriscos from Spain", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1609–1614", "periods": [ { "start": 1609, "end": 1614, "yearLabel": "1609–1614", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Morisco communities in Spain, descended from Muslims subjected to forced conversion; the policy risked expelling sincere Christians as well" ], "settlers": [ "Philip III and his ministers, regional authorities and military forces directing expulsion; royal and private ships carrying deportees" ], "evidence": "Míkel de Epalza’s chapter on conflict and expulsion, including its summaries of regional decrees and exceptions, and Már Jónsson’s published article abstract", "story": "Between 1609 and 1614, the Spanish monarchy expelled Morisco communities through a sequence of regional orders. Forced conversion in the preceding century had made them legally Christian, without producing a uniform religious identity. Philip III’s government sought their removal; its intended general expulsion did not mean that every Morisco left Spain.\n\nThe operation began in Valencia. The viceroy published the order on 22 September 1609, after preparations to assemble soldiers and ships. Epalza describes embarkations from ports along the Valencian coast, attacks on departing people, and armed resistance in inland mountain communities that was bloodily suppressed. He connects that resistance with news of mistreatment suffered by deportees arriving through Oran. The government’s security arguments treated Moriscos as a potential internal enemy; that rationale does not establish the loyalty or conduct of every person expelled.\n\nThe provisions varied by region. Epalza contrasts the sale of goods in Valencia, sometimes at depressed prices, with partial confiscation for the royal treasury prescribed for Andalusia. The Andalusian provisions required parents to leave children under seven behind unless the family went to Christian lands. Epalza links that rule to departures directed toward France, while some ships instead changed course for Morocco. The Aragonese order allowed children under four to remain if their parents agreed. These were different rules, and the Valencian provisions were only partly fulfilled.\n\nThe orders extended to the Castiles and Extremadura in July 1610 and to Murcia in October, with a temporary exception for the Ricote valley. Epalza reports departures across the Pyrenees and through Mediterranean and Andalusian ports. In Granada, some people stayed under legal exceptions or with the help of established Christian neighbors. His account also records young children taken from departing Morisco families and retained in Valencia.\n\nMost operations occurred in 1609–1610, with further removals continuing through 1614. Jónsson’s abstract estimates 300,000 expelled and says that a majority settled in North Africa. Epalza distinguishes roughly 275,000 documented expulsions, attributed to Lapeyre and Bernard Vincent, from an estimate of more than 300,000 affected when clandestine departures and deaths during the hardships of exile are included. These are attributed estimates with different counting bases. People who remained and people who later returned prevent the expulsion from being described as complete demographic disappearance.", "contested": "Epalza presents a historical synthesis and explicitly leaves the relative weight of political and religious motives partly unresolved. The decrees and the studies he cites were not independently consulted here. Jónsson’s full article was not accessed; its abstract’s broad description of Morisco religious adherence is not treated as a finding about every individual. Valencia’s violence, property arrangements and child retention are not generalized to all regions. Epalza’s mention of people remaining or returning under Philip IV is later aftermath, not a new date within the 1609–1614 event.", "note": "This case concerns forced removal under a common royal policy carried out through regional orders. The inherited family and complete eight-trait profile are unchanged. Their ordinal values are not percentages: they do not establish that all Moriscos left, that nobody returned, or a measured number of replacement settlers. Earlier forced conversions and the dispersal after the Alpujarras war are background rather than additional phases of this event.", "placeGloss": "The affected communities lived in several Spanish kingdoms. Valencia, Andalusia, the Castiles, Extremadura, Aragon, Catalonia and Murcia had distinct departure arrangements. France and North Africa appear as routes or destinations, not a single destination shared by every deportee.", "sources": [ "v7_morisco_epalza", "v7_morisco_jonsson" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The chapter names ports, overland passages and regional destinations, but the reviewed evidence does not supply verified historical coordinates, departure-area boundaries or a complete set of routes for the whole expulsion. No case point, polygon or route is proposed. A generic Spanish or North African point would collapse different movements; the map remains background context." }, { "id": "modern-okinawa-base-land-seizure", "name": "Okinawan land seizure and displacement for United States military bases", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1945–1972", "periods": [ { "start": 1945, "end": 1972, "yearLabel": "1945–1972", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Okinawan residents whose home sites and farmland were taken for U.S. bases, including people prevented from returning after internment." ], "settlers": [ "U.S. military occupation authorities, troops and base administrators taking land for military installations." ], "evidence": "Okinawa Prefecture’s official retrospective history describes land seizure during internment, settlement around bases by residents unable to return home, and further postwar removals enforced by armed troops. Its chronology ends U.S. administration in 1972; it does not provide a census of displaced residents.", "story": "The Battle of Okinawa devastated the island in 1945. Base construction brought a further loss of homes and land. In its account of Futenma Air Station’s construction, Okinawa Prefecture describes U.S. forces confining residents in internment camps and taking their land for bases. The account says that people whose land had been seized could not return to their hometowns and had to settle around the bases.\n\nThe prefectural history also describes expansion after the war. Under a panel headed 1955, it reports that U.S. troops drove residents out, demolished houses and destroyed farmland to construct additional bases. It connects the military’s demand for new installations to changes in the international situation, including the Korean War. The history distinguishes these coercive acquisitions from the destruction caused by the fighting in 1945.\n\nOkinawa remained under U.S. administration until its reversion to Japan in 1972. The prefectural account records a National Diet resolution at reversion calling for future reduction and reorganization of the bases. That administrative change did not itself mean that all seized land was returned or all displaced residents went home.", "contested": "This is an official prefectural account written amid continuing disagreement over the bases. It presents the prefecture’s position on land seizure and the burden of military facilities. The historical panels describe forced removal and blocked return, but supply no comprehensive count of displaced people, no parcel-by-parcel acquisition record and no complete return record. Their account of land seizure does not make every person displaced by the 1945 battle a victim of base clearance.", "note": "The 1945–1972 interval follows base acquisition under U.S. administration to reversion. The 1955 heading introduces a broader account of postwar expansion; it is not a date for every removal. Later agreements, protests and present-day base statistics in the brochure fall outside this event. Modern concentration figures are not measurements of the land taken or the population displaced during 1945–1972.", "placeGloss": "Okinawa, with Futenma Air Station named in the 1945 construction panel. The account also describes residents settling around bases, without specifying their individual routes or a complete set of destination communities.", "geometryExplanation": "The history identifies Okinawa and names Futenma, but does not supply a verified historical acquisition boundary or relocation route for the combined 1945–1972 event. Contemporary facility maps would not establish that historical footprint. No marker, boundary or route is proposed.", "sources": [ "v7_okinawa_prefecture_base_history" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "pacific-peruvian-polynesian-slave-raids", "name": "Peruvian slave raids across Polynesia", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1862–1864", "periods": [ { "start": 1862, "end": 1864, "yearLabel": "1862–1864", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Polynesian islanders, including people from Rapa Nui, the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, Tuvalu and Tonga, recruited by differing means and carried away for labour in Peru" ], "settlers": [ "Merchants, shipowners, captains and recruiters operating from Peru, with Peruvian recruiting licences; employers buying their labour in Peru" ], "evidence": "H. E. Maude’s reconstruction from scattered archival and island accounts, read in the ANU digitization of Slavers in Paradise, and the United Nations’ 1987 historical outline of Tokelau", "story": "Ships operating from Peru carried islanders across the Pacific for agricultural labour and domestic service in 1862–1863. The trade used recruiting licences and the language of contracts, while captains also obtained people through deception and armed kidnapping. Maude’s account follows the sequence from the first licence in April 1862 through attempts to repatriate survivors and a Franco-Peruvian settlement in June 1864.\n\nInitial recruitment was not uniform. At Tongareva, also known as Penrhyn, coconut-crop failure and hopes of earning money for churches encouraged people to leave. Maude distinguishes willing recruitment from misleading promises about work, destination or duration, and from outright capture. On the first Adelante voyage, recruits were allowed to move about the ship. On many later voyages captives were confined below deck to prevent escape. Agreement to embark did not mean that people retained control over their labour or return.\n\nThe raids struck Tokelau’s three atolls particularly severely. In Maude’s account of Atafu, islanders went aboard to barter for clothing; the crew trapped them in the hold and forced their chief below. Armed parties also removed people from Fakaofo. Maude estimates 253 taken from the Tokelau atolls, including women and children, while the United Nations’ historical outline gives about 140. The accounts are not reconciled here. Maude also describes dysentery reaching Fakaofo before the raiders and spreading among captives aboard the ships: deaths in that sequence cannot all be counted as people removed from Tokelau.\n\nIn Peru, buyers took some islanders into domestic service in Lima and Callao and others to coastal estates. Maude describes confinement, inadequate food, beatings, illness and high mortality, despite contractual promises. His account of a French-led inspection of twelve haciendas in two valleys records gravely ill people and employers resisting their release. This is evidence of bondage in practice, with conditions and individual experiences varying.\n\nRepatriation brought further deaths and displacement. Maude records smallpox aboard the Diamant and the Barbara Gomez, and survivors landed on islands other than their own. Sixteen people from the latter ship were put ashore on Rapa; nine survived there, and an epidemic, probably dysentery, killed many Rapans. Other intended returnees were abandoned on Cocos Island and a small surviving group was taken back to Peru. Removal, arrival in Peru, embarkation for repatriation, landing somewhere in Polynesia and return to a home island are different outcomes. The surviving island communities faced bereavement and losses of working adults; these accounts do not establish their cultural disappearance.", "contested": "Maude warns that he sometimes omits words such as probably from his narrative and that reconstructed ship routes and some ship-level counts are uncertain. His recruitment tables distinguish voluntary engagement, misrepresentation, kidnapping and cases without evidence; their totals include Micronesian Gilbertese as well as Polynesians. Their aggregate removal, death and survival figures therefore cannot be treated as one purely Polynesian cohort. The UN’s later periodic raids through about 1883 and its combined raid-and-disease population decline lie beyond this case’s 1862–1864 window. Neither the UN’s about 140 nor Maude’s 253 Tokelau estimate is silently substituted for the other.", "note": "This case follows an outward labour-removal campaign and its immediate consequences. The inherited family and complete eight-trait profile are preserved as ordinal analytical values, not population percentages. In particular, the imported-unfree-labour value of zero must not be read as denying enslavement or forced labour in Peru, and the low durability value does not erase bereavement or lasting community losses. Maude’s underlying archival documents and the UN outline’s underlying historical sources were not independently read.", "placeGloss": "The source zone spans several island groups; Callao was a principal arrival port in Peru. Rapa, Rapa Nui (Easter Island), and Tongareva (Penrhyn) are distinct places. Landings during attempted repatriation do not by themselves show return to a person’s homeland.", "sources": [ "v7_polynesia_maude", "v7_polynesia_un_tokelau" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "Maude supplies schematic maps and reconstructed itineraries but explicitly qualifies route details. The bounded reading does not establish verified coordinates, complete voyage tracks or a single historical removal footprint for this campaign. No marker, route, polygon or sourced-reference registration is proposed; the world map remains background context." }, { "id": "medieval-mongol-nishapur-massacre-and-artisan-removal", "name": "Nishapur: massacre and removal of craftspeople", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "April 1221 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1221, "end": 1221, "yearLabel": "April 1221 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Residents of Nishapur, including men, women and children killed during the capture and its aftermath", "Craftspeople selected for forced removal to Turkestan; Juvaini reports 400" ], "settlers": [ "Tolui’s Mongol army and the household of Toghachar; the read accounts identify conquerors, not an incoming resident population" ], "evidence": "Juvaini’s account, in J. A. Boyle’s translation, describes the April 1221 capture, massacre and selection of craftspeople for deportation. Peter Jackson places this account in the campaign’s chronology and questions the enormous medieval casualty figures.", "story": "Mongol forces captured Nishapur in April 1221 after an earlier submission and renewed resistance. The city had supplied provisions to passing Mongol armies in 1220. Later that year an arrow killed Toghachar, a son-in-law of Chinggis Khan, during fighting outside its walls. When Tolui’s army approached the following spring, a request for protection in exchange for tribute failed.\n\nJuvaini describes fighting on the walls and continued resistance inside the city, followed by the expulsion of surviving men and women onto the plain. His account connects the destruction and killing to vengeance for Toghachar, whose widow entered with her escort. It reports that 400 people were selected for their craftsmanship and taken to Turkestan. This was forced removal from Nishapur, alongside the killing of residents and destruction of their homes.\n\nJackson treats the removal of skilled people as an additional form of depopulation after conquest. The accounts establish a massacre and selective deportation, but do not provide a reliable count of everyone killed or displaced.", "contested": "The figure of 400 craftspeople is Juvaini’s report, repeated by Jackson, not an independently confirmed census. Jackson rejects the enormous reported death toll for Nishapur. Juvaini’s language of comprehensive destruction does not establish a measured survival rate or permanent disappearance of the city. His separate reference to 400 Taziks left behind to search for survivors describes another group, not the deported craftspeople.", "note": "The event is the April 1221 capture and its immediate aftermath; the encounters of 1220 are background. Juvaini says that some deportees’ descendants remained in Turkestan in his own time. This is a medieval report, not evidence tracing their later descendants, working conditions or return. The material read does not identify an incoming settler community at Nishapur. Outgoing artisan removal is distinct from importing workers into the city.", "placeGloss": "Nishapur is the conquered city; Turkestan is the broad destination named for the selected craftspeople. The cited passage does not identify a receiving town.", "geometryExplanation": "The retained accounts describe movement from the city onto the plain and onward to Turkestan, but provide no verified coordinates, receiving settlement, route or territorial footprint for this event. Geometry remains unknown.", "sources": [ "v7_nishapur_juvaini", "v7_nishapur_jackson" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "prospective-nicaraguan-revolutionary-exile-and-flight-through-july-1979", "name": "Nicaraguan refugee flight during the anti-Somoza insurrection", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1978–1979", "periods": [ { "start": 1978, "end": 1979, "yearLabel": "1978–1979", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Nicaraguans who fled following the September 1978 events and received refugee assistance before the July 1979 change of government, mainly in Costa Rica and Honduras" ], "settlers": [ "Anastasio Somoza Debayle’s government and the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) in the conflict; Nicaraguan refugees, asylum governments and UNHCR in flight, assistance and return" ], "evidence": "UNHCR’s 1980 report on its 1979 assistance operations and its later historical account of the July 1979 transition; the exact-day cutoff has a separate source-access qualification", "story": "Nicaraguans fled their country following the events of September 1978. UNHCR reports that about 100,000 Nicaraguans, mainly in Costa Rica and Honduras, were the focus of its refugee assistance during the first half of 1979. This is an assistance caseload for that period, not a count of every person displaced or harmed in Nicaragua.\n\nThe flight occurred during the conflict against Anastasio Somoza Debayle’s government. UNHCR’s later history describes opposition among political parties, students, labor unions, sections of the middle class and the Roman Catholic church, alongside advances by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN). These groups do not identify the politics of every refugee. The account dates Somoza’s departure and Sandinista control to July 1979.\n\nThe change of government enabled many of the earlier refugees to return. UNHCR’s 1980 report says that the great majority of the Nicaraguan refugees it had assisted repatriated voluntarily during the latter part of 1979. Its account also records some 17,000 remaining, mainly in Costa Rica. That report-period remainder is not a count taken on the day of the political transition, and it should not be added to the earlier assistance figure.\n\nUNHCR reports supporting both refugees abroad and people returning to Nicaragua, including food, medical supplies and agricultural equipment for returnees. Large-scale return did not establish that every person recovered a home, land or livelihood. At the same time, other Nicaraguans departed after the change of government. The earlier flight and return form this case; the new departures belong to a different cohort.", "contested": "UNHCR dates the transition only to July 1979. This record uses 19 July 1979 as its cutoff, following an IACHR chronology that has not been rechecked against its original text. That date does not establish the last departure or the date of every return. The accounts used here do not enumerate every origin community, individual reason for flight, property loss or return history.", "note": "This case follows the refugee cohort that left after the September 1978 events before the July 1979 transition. Post-change exiles, Contra-war displacement and the later Miskito relocation remain outside it. Return was substantial but incomplete; the accounts do not establish that everyone recovered a home, land or livelihood.", "placeGloss": "Nicaragua is the source country of the flight; Costa Rica and Honduras were the principal countries named in the early-1979 assistance account. The report describes returnee assistance mainly in northern agricultural provinces of Nicaragua, without identifying a complete set of departure or return communities.", "sources": [ "v7_nicaragua_unhcr1980", "v7_nicaragua_unhcr2000" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The exact departure communities, crossing points and return settlements of this cohort are not established in the sources used here. The chapter map depicts 1980s refugee flows, rather than the journeys of this 1978–1979 cohort." }, { "id": "prospective-first-liberian-civil-war-displacement", "name": "First Liberian civil-war displacement, December 1989–1997", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "December 1989–1997", "periods": [ { "start": 1989, "end": 1997, "yearLabel": "December 1989–1997", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Liberian civilians forced from their homes, including people displaced repeatedly within Liberia and refugees in neighbouring countries" ], "settlers": [ "The National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL), forces loyal to President Samuel Doe and later armed factions; the regional ECOMOG force intervened in the conflict" ], "evidence": "UNHCR’s retrospective account of war and displacement in West Africa, with Human Rights Watch used to distinguish the first war’s end from the later LURD conflict", "story": "War began in Liberia in December 1989 between the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) and forces loyal to President Samuel Doe. Armed factions multiplied as the conflict continued. UNHCR describes civilian massacres, mutilations, widespread destruction of property and the recruitment of child soldiers. Civilians fled within Liberia and across its borders.\n\nIn 1990, the Economic Community of West African States sent its military observer force, ECOMOG, into Liberia. It gained control of Monrovia while much of the country remained in rebel hands. The capital offered no lasting refuge from the fighting: repeated struggles for control displaced people who had sought shelter there. When Liberians first crossed into Guinea and Côte d’Ivoire, local residents opened their homes to them, and relatively few refugees initially lived in camps.\n\nUNHCR’s account reports more than 1.7 million people uprooted over the war, approximately 40 per cent of whom fled to neighbouring countries; almost all the remainder were internally displaced. These are broad estimates of displacement, not a person-by-person record of departures and returns. Refugees are part of the uprooted population, and repeated flight does not necessarily mean another person was displaced.\n\nIn April 1996, renewed fighting in Monrovia sent more than 350,000 civilians fleeing, according to UNHCR. They included people already displaced in the city. Some escaped by sea on the Bulk Challenge and the Zolotista, only to be refused entry at ports along the West African coast. Ghana eventually allowed the Bulk Challenge to land after reports of serious illness aboard. The Zolotista returned to Monrovia after three weeks at sea. Escape from the city did not ensure a secure place to stay.\n\nA peace agreement after the 1996 violence held, and an internationally supervised election in 1997 brought NPFL leader Charles Taylor to the presidency. That political transition closes this first-war case; it does not establish that everyone could return home or recover property. Human Rights Watch’s later report distinguishes the war ending with the 1997 elections from the LURD incursion beginning in July 2000. The later conflict and its displaced populations belong to a separate event.", "contested": "The population figures describe different categories and observation periods. The inherited record cites about 700,000 refugees through UNHCR’s 1999 return-operation report, whose body was not reread here. That refugee estimate and the chapter’s more than 1.7 million uprooted are not inherently contradictory: refugees are a subset of all displaced people. They are not reconciled here into a precise internally displaced total. The chapter’s 1994 map gives dated stocks; these cannot be added to repeated Monrovia flight or to later refugee and returnee counts. Its regional figures also include Sierra Leone and other conflicts. Neither a unique displaced-person total nor an exact final day of displacement is established.", "note": "This case concerns civilians driven from their homes, without a demonstrated replacement-settlement program. Child-soldier recruitment is documented; recruiting people during the war is distinct from bringing a separate population from elsewhere for unfree labour. The 1997 transition does not establish complete return or property recovery. The original reports cited for detailed return and reintegration operations have not been rechecked.", "placeGloss": "Monrovia is Liberia’s capital. Guinea and Côte d’Ivoire were important neighbouring asylum countries; the ship episode also reaches Ghana. These places identify the account’s setting, not a complete itinerary for Liberian refugees.", "sources": [ "v7_liberia_first_war_unhcr", "v7_liberia_first_war_hrw", "v7_liberia_first_war_inherited" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The UNHCR map shows country-level movements and population estimates for 1994. It does not establish the exact communities affected or the land and sea routes taken across the 1989–1997 war." }, { "id": "medieval-mutsu-frontier-reorganization-720-724", "name": "Mutsu: frontier reorganization and fortified settlement", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "720–724 CE (post-uprising institutional sequence)", "periods": [ { "start": 720, "end": 724, "yearLabel": "720–724 CE (post-uprising institutional sequence)", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Emishi-classified communities and other prior residents of the Mutsu frontier, affected by expanding court administration and settlement; the number physically removed is not established" ], "settlers": [ "Immigrants placed in the affected frontier area by the Japanese court, alongside officials and soldiers; the sources consulted do not count these groups" ], "evidence": "Kimio Kumagai’s study links immigrant placement, new counties and fortified offices to the reorganization around the 720 uprising. Taga’s monument dates its foundation to 724. Karl F. Friday describes the wider stockade settlement system and the sparse records of campaigns in 720 and 724.", "story": "The Japanese court reorganized the Mutsu frontier during the years between the 720 uprising and Taga’s recorded foundation in 724. Kumagai describes the establishment of new counties and the placement of immigrants in the area affected by the uprising. The government also suspended taxation, stationed a provisional military force, and annexed Iwaki and Iwashiro into Mutsu.\n\nTaga combined provincial administration with military command. Kumagai reports that archaeological research connects its construction with five other fortified government offices. He cites Hirakawa’s proposal that work on Taga began soon after the 720 uprising and was completed in 724. Kumagai suggests that the uprising may have prompted its foundation.\n\nThis reorganization formed part of a wider frontier system that joined settlement to government control. Friday describes households transplanted into Emishi territory around stockades, protected by troops. Those outposts were centers of administration as well as defense. His account describes that broader system; it does not supply a count of settlers arriving during 720–724. The same frontier was a site of armed resistance: Friday records punitive campaigns following the killing of provincial officials in 720 and 724, while stressing how little detail survives.", "contested": "The 720–724 dates mark an institutional sequence, not a measured period of continuous migration. The proposed construction start and the uprising’s causal role remain interpretations. The passages consulted give neither a settler census nor a measured number of prior residents killed, expelled or deprived of land. Administrative expansion and immigrant placement should not be read as proof that all prior inhabitants were removed.", "note": "Emishi was a political classification for people outside the court’s rule, rather than a securely defined single ethnic population. Ryohei Takehiro describes changing legal treatment and possibilities of incorporation across the eighth century; his broader account does not date every change to this event. The separately recorded transfer out of Mutsu in 725 and the later campaigns of 774–811 fall outside this case.", "placeGloss": "Mutsu is the frontier province; Taga is the administrative and military center. Iwaki and Iwashiro are the provinces Kumagai describes as annexed into Mutsu.", "geometryExplanation": "The consulted passages identify Taga and a wider area of frontier reorganization, but do not establish a verified footprint, settlement coordinates or movement route for this event. Geometry remains unknown.", "sources": [ "v7_mutsu720_kumagai", "v7_mutsu720_friday", "v7_mutsu720_takehiro" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "modern-guatemala-civil-war-displacement", "name": "Guatemalan civil-war displacement and refuge in Mexico", "region": "Latin America", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1960–1996", "periods": [ { "start": 1960, "end": 1996, "yearLabel": "1960–1996", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Indigenous communities and other Guatemalan civilians displaced within Guatemala or seeking refuge in Mexico; the documented account concentrates on displacement from 1981 onward" ], "settlers": [ "Guatemalan armed forces and guerrilla organizations in the conflict; Mexican authorities, refugees, UNHCR and aid organizations in asylum, relocation and integration" ], "evidence": "UNHCR’s retrospective history documents the 1981 campaign, refuge in Mexico and the 1996 peace agreement; earlier chronology and domestic militarized resettlement remain incompletely sourced here", "story": "In late 1981, Guatemala’s military began an 18-month counterinsurgency campaign that targeted guerrillas and Indigenous communities it regarded as bases of rebel support. UNHCR reports that tens of thousands of civilians, mostly Indigenous people, were killed or disappeared. At the height of the violence, an estimated one million people were internally displaced as a result of the campaign. The military’s view of these communities does not establish the allegiance of every resident.\n\nMany Guatemalans also crossed into Mexico. According to UNHCR, more than 200,000 entered between 1981 and 1982. Mexico initially deported thousands, then established a registration process after international protests and allowed 46,000 registered refugees to remain. Many others were unregistered, including people who joined existing migrant workforces, reached Mexico City or arrived after registration closed. They lived with the threat of deportation.\n\nRegistered refugees lived in more than 50 camps in remote parts of Chiapas, where conditions were poor. From 1984, the Mexican government moved refugees to settlements in Campeche and Quintana Roo; eventually some 18,000 moved. The government cited Guatemalan military attacks across the border on refugee sites. UNHCR also describes the Chiapas governor’s opposition to the refugees and the Mexican government’s interest in development on the Yucatán peninsula.\n\nSome 25,000 registered refugees resisted that relocation and remained in Chiapas. Low wages and restricted access to land and services made life difficult. In 1987, some left the camps and some returned to Guatemala. UNHCR says security and living conditions in Chiapas subsequently improved somewhat.\n\nThe Mexican government, UNHCR and nongovernmental organizations supplied refugees in Campeche and Quintana Roo with land, shelter, food aid and social services. UNHCR describes those settlements as successful in achieving self-sufficiency and local integration. Most refugees who moved there remained permanently, and Mexico eventually granted them citizenship. These settlements in Mexico were different from the militarized resettlement within Guatemala mentioned in the original record; the chapter passages used here do not establish that domestic program.\n\nGuatemala reached a formal peace agreement in 1996. UNHCR notes that many refugees had returned before the peace agreements in Guatemala and El Salvador. Return and integration abroad were different outcomes: neither establishes that every displaced Guatemalan recovered a home, land or livelihood.", "contested": "This record uses the broader 1960–1996 civil-war interval. The cited chapter focuses on the 1980s: its passages establish neither the 1960 onset nor every earlier phase, and this account concentrates on displacement from 1981 onward. The original source listed for the record, UNHCR’s Global Appeal 1999 regional overview, has not been consulted in full. The chapter does not establish the record’s specific claim of militarized model-village resettlement within Guatemala. Its wider Central American totals combine several wars and are not Guatemala-only estimates. Peak internal displacement, border arrivals, registrations and later relocations measure different populations and periods; they cannot be added into a unique displaced-person total.", "note": "The 1996 peace agreement marks a political boundary, not the last displacement or a date when every person returned. Some refugees returned earlier; others built lasting lives in Mexico. Their different outcomes do not prove universal property recovery.", "placeGloss": "Chiapas borders Guatemala. Campeche and Quintana Roo are on Mexico’s Yucatán peninsula; the settlements described here were places of refuge and integration in Mexico.", "sources": [ "v7_guatemala_unhcr2000" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The account names countries and Mexican states but does not establish the exact communities, border crossings or routes for this displaced population. The chapter’s regional map does not provide a verified footprint for the whole 1960–1996 case." }, { "id": "modern-mozambique-civil-war-displacement", "name": "Mozambique: civil war and mass displacement", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1977–1992 (record period; UNHCR dates the war’s onset to 1976)", "periods": [ { "start": 1977, "end": 1992, "yearLabel": "1977–1992 (record period; UNHCR dates the war’s onset to 1976)", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Mozambican civilians who fled their homes within the country or sought refuge in neighboring states; UNHCR reports about 1.7 million refugees by 1992" ], "settlers": [ "FRELIMO government forces and RENAMO insurgents were the armed actors driving displacement; the account does not identify an incoming population replacing those who fled" ], "evidence": "UNHCR’s retrospective account describes violence, widespread flight and conditions in neighboring Malawi. It dates the war from 1976 to 1992, while this record retains the period 1977–1992. Its population figures are rounded estimates.", "story": "Mozambican civilians fled a war between the FRELIMO government and RENAMO insurgents. UNHCR describes RENAMO’s systematic killing, maiming, rape and pillage as means of controlling people in its areas of operation. Flight increased as its territorial control expanded. Government forces also adopted increasingly brutal measures. The account identifies the white-minority governments of Rhodesia and South Africa as RENAMO’s founders and supporters.\n\nBy the refugee crisis’s peak in 1992, UNHCR reports about 1.7 million Mozambicans in neighboring countries and at least twice as many displaced within Mozambique. In several districts of Tete province, as many as 90 percent of inhabitants had fled. Malawi hosted the largest share of the refugees: as many as 1.1 million at the height of the exodus. These people were part of the refugee total, not an additional group.\n\nMany early arrivals in Malawi settled alongside local people, and some obtained land to farm. Others depended on aid. Malawi initially used its existing clinics and services to help refugees, then sought UNHCR assistance in 1986. In 1987, as arrivals grew, the government asked UNHCR to establish camps and directed all new refugees to move into them. It also barred local people from providing refugees with agricultural land. Eventually, more than two-thirds of the refugees in Malawi lived in camps.\n\nRefugees continued to earn income through activities such as making pots, raising animals and trading part of their rations for other necessities. Aid helped sustain both refugees and local services, but transport and storage problems interrupted food supplies. By 1992, prolonged displacement had strained relations with host communities. UNHCR’s account records the war ending that year; it does not establish how completely people recovered their homes or land afterward.", "contested": "The record’s 1977 starting year differs from UNHCR’s 1976 onset. UNHCR separately reports about 1.7 million refugees, at least twice as many internally displaced people, and about 5.7 million people uprooted overall. These rounded figures are retained as reported, without forcing them into a single arithmetic total. The 90 percent figure applies to several Tete districts, not Mozambique as a whole.", "note": "Malawi’s refugee population is a subset of cross-border displacement, and its changing land and camp policies are host-country conditions. They do not show a population replacing the refugees in Mozambique. This account covers wartime flight through 1992. The original reference to a later return programme has not been verified from its source body, so no scale of postwar return or property restoration is asserted here.", "placeGloss": "Mozambique is the country of origin; Malawi, South Africa, Swaziland (now Eswatini), Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe are the host countries named by UNHCR. Tete is the province containing the several districts discussed in the account.", "geometryExplanation": "The source names host countries and severely depopulated districts but provides no verified route, settlement coordinates or event footprint for this case. Geometry remains unknown.", "sources": [ "v7_mozambique_unhcr2000_box52" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "prospective-isle-of-man-enemy-alien-internment-1914-1919", "name": "Civilian internment at Douglas and Knockaloe", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "island", "dates": "1914–1919", "periods": [ { "start": 1914, "end": 1919, "yearLabel": "1914–1919", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Civilian men classified as enemy aliens and confined at Douglas and Knockaloe. Camp residents had different religious, social and economic backgrounds." ], "settlers": [ "British wartime authorities, island camp administrators and guards; civilian property owners whose premises were requisitioned." ], "evidence": "Manx National Heritage’s catalogue describes the Douglas camp records and supplies a historical account of internment. The original journals and registers have not been inspected for this account.", "story": "British authorities requisitioned Cunningham’s Holiday Camp in Douglas for civilian internment after the outbreak of the First World War. The first civilian detainees arrived on the island by September 1914. A place used for holidays became a detention camp.\n\nDouglas’s internees ranged from poor men to wealthy and highly educated residents. The camp developed separate ordinary, paid privilege and Jewish sections. The privilege section offered additional facilities to those who could afford them; the Jewish section provided kosher food and facilities for religious observance. These differences existed within compulsory confinement.\n\nManx National Heritage reports that approximately 2,600 men were at Douglas by late October 1914, temporarily rising to 3,300 after transfers from other camps. Its account links overcrowding, boredom and complaints about food to a November riot in which five internees were shot and killed. It also reports that an inquest justified the guards’ actions. That is the catalogue’s account of the inquest, not an independent endorsement of its judgment.\n\nThe much larger Knockaloe camp on the island’s west coast had four sub-camps within a barbed-wire compound. According to the catalogue, it housed more than 20,000 men by the end of the war. The camps developed workshops, art, theatrical groups and a school; internees could keep their own clothes and personal belongings. These activities show forms of life within detention, rather than freedom to leave it.\n\nAfter the November 1918 armistice, the Douglas camp closed: the catalogue states that all its internees had been released by 1919 and that Cunningham’s resumed holiday operations for the summer season. That statement concerns Douglas. It does not establish each Knockaloe sub-camp’s exact closure date or each person’s release and later destination.", "contested": "The population figures are snapshots at different camps and dates, not numbers to add into a unique total. The catalogue also describes an enclosure listing 24 deaths using the term “prisoners of war.” The underlying list has not been examined, so that figure is not used here as a civilian or island-wide death total.", "note": "This account concerns civilian detention during the First World War. Compulsory residence in the camps did not make the detainees a colonizing settler community. The documented return to holiday use concerns Cunningham’s at Douglas; individual destinations after release remain unresolved.", "placeGloss": "Douglas’s camp occupied Cunningham’s former holiday premises at Victoria Road. Knockaloe was on the island’s west coast.", "sources": [ "v7_manx1914_mnh_catalogue" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Douglas — town locator", "lon": -4.48333, "lat": 54.15 }, { "name": "Knockaloe — nearby former camp courthouse", "lon": -4.6938, "lat": 54.20489 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped", "geometryExplanation": "Town and nearby historical-site orientation points only; camp boundaries, individual buildings and transport routes are not represented.", "zoomFloor": 1.25, "viewPadding": 0.25, "markerScale": 0.35, "cameraContext": [ { "lon": -4.9, "lat": 54 }, { "lon": -4.2, "lat": 54.46 } ] }, { "id": "prospective-isle-of-man-enemy-alien-internment-1940-1945", "name": "Civilian internment on the Isle of Man during the Second World War", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "island", "dates": "1940–1945", "periods": [ { "start": 1940, "end": 1945, "yearLabel": "1940–1945", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Civilians classified under wartime enemy-nationality rules, including German, Austrian and Italian men and women and refugees from Nazi persecution. Children accompanying their mothers had a different formal status from internees." ], "settlers": [ "The British government, camp authorities and guards, and tribunals that considered release; boarding-house owners and other island residents affected by requisition and camp boundaries." ], "evidence": "Manx National Heritage’s teaching resource describes the May 1940 arrest decision, camp locations, differing periods of detention and life at Rushen. It is an institutional educational account, not a complete internee register.", "story": "In May 1940, fear of invasion and sabotage led the British government to order the arrest of many foreign-born civilians. People whose nationality or documents brought them under these measures were sent to detention camps, including camps on the Isle of Man. Some had already fled Nazi persecution to seek safety in Britain. Their nationality did not establish that they supported the regimes from which they had escaped.\n\nMale camps occupied former boarding houses in Douglas, Ramsey, Onchan and Peel. Manx National Heritage reports that owners were given one week’s notice to leave before barbed wire went up and internees arrived. Women were sent to Rushen, comprising enclosed areas around Port Erin and Port St Mary; a married camp was later established at Port St Mary. The requisitioning of property and restriction of movement affected the surrounding community as well as those detained.\n\nThe teaching resource records the arrival of 3,025 women with 300 children in May 1940. It reports that more than 5,800 women and children had passed through the women’s or married camp areas by the end of the war. Children under sixteen could remain with their mothers but were not formally interned. Those figures describe different categories and periods, rather than a single island-wide internee total.\n\nSome local people also found their homes within the fenced areas and had to show documents to guards when leaving the town. Within Rushen, a Service Exchange allowed women to exchange skills such as sewing, hairdressing, language teaching and legal advice for tokens that could buy goods in the camp.\n\nDetention did not last five years for everyone. Manx National Heritage describes many internees, especially refugees from Nazi persecution, obtaining tribunal release after a few months. Some subsequently undertook war work. Its teaching example of Martha Probst’s registration card records internment in July 1940, release in December 1941 and a return to London. The displayed card is identified as a reproduction; it illustrates an individual sequence, not the experience of every detainee.", "contested": "The 1940–1945 interval identifies this wartime system; it is not a shared term of imprisonment. Exact opening and closure dates for every camp, a complete population crosswalk and individual release histories remain unresolved. The source’s broad description of nationality and age rules is not treated as proof that every eligible person was arrested.", "note": "Refugees from Nazi persecution were among the civilians detained. Their earlier flight did not make them colonizing settlers. Children under sixteen accompanying their mothers were not formally interned, and tribunal releases mean the wartime interval cannot be assigned to every person as a five-year detention.", "placeGloss": "Male camps were in Douglas, Ramsey, Onchan and Peel. Rushen included fenced areas of Port Erin and Port St Mary; the teaching resource reproduces a plan of Port Erin showing barbed wire.", "sources": [ "v7_manx1940_mnh_teachers" ], "origins": [], "targets": [ { "name": "Douglas — town locator", "lon": -4.48333, "lat": 54.15 }, { "name": "Ramsey — town locator", "lon": -4.38526, "lat": 54.32273 }, { "name": "Onchan — town locator", "lon": -4.45324, "lat": 54.17329 }, { "name": "Peel — town locator", "lon": -4.69099, "lat": 54.22209 }, { "name": "Port Erin — Rushen town locator", "lon": -4.75099, "lat": 54.08487 }, { "name": "Port St Mary — Rushen town locator", "lon": -4.73858, "lat": 54.07405 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped", "geometryExplanation": "Town and nearby historical-site orientation points only; camp boundaries, individual buildings and transport routes are not represented.", "zoomFloor": 1.25, "viewPadding": 0.25, "markerScale": 0.35, "cameraContext": [ { "lon": -4.9, "lat": 54 }, { "lon": -4.2, "lat": 54.46 } ] }, { "name": "Salvadoran war displacement and refuge in Honduras", "region": "Latin America", "displaced": [ "Salvadoran civilians uprooted by war and repression; the cited account follows refugees in Honduras, including people at La Virtud, Mesa Grande and Colomoncagua." ], "settlers": [ "Salvadoran military and paramilitary forces, FMLN insurgents in the wider war, and Honduran authorities and armed forces; UNHCR and relief organizations involved in protection, assistance and contested relocation." ], "evidence": "UNHCR’s retrospective history describes Salvadoran political repression and war, flight to Honduras, forced return at the border and a contested camp relocation. Its detailed Honduras account supports a particular part of the wider displacement, rather than a complete census of people displaced within El Salvador or abroad.", "story": "Political repression and killings accompanied opposition organizing in El Salvador during the 1970s. In the following decade the government fought the FMLN insurgency. UNHCR’s account dates the first Salvadoran refugee arrivals in Honduras to 1980 and describes settlement in border communities, especially La Virtud. Honduran authorities treated the refugees as suspected guerrilla collaborators; this suspicion did not establish that all the displaced civilians were combatants.\n\nIn May 1980, Honduran troops turned back hundreds fleeing attack by the Salvadoran military. UNHCR reports that many of those forced back were subsequently killed. Intensifying fighting drove further flight, and by early 1981 the Salvadoran refugee population in Honduras had reached about 30,000. This was a dated population in one host country, not the number displaced throughout the war.\n\nIn October 1981, Honduras announced that refugees at La Virtud would be moved farther from the border to Mesa Grande. The stated aim was protection, which UNHCR supported. Some NGOs and other observers believed the purpose was to clear the border for military operations and prevent assistance to guerrillas. Refugees and most NGOs at La Virtud opposed the move. After Salvadoran soldiers and paramilitaries entered La Virtud and abducted refugees on 16 November 1981, Honduras proceeded immediately, although Mesa Grande was not ready. UNHCR assisted despite its concerns and the refugees’ resistance.\n\nWithin five months, UNHCR says, 7,500 refugees had been relocated, while more than 5,000 others returned to El Salvador rather than move to Mesa Grande. Many promised amenities did not materialize and conditions worsened. Closed-camp rules barred outside employment and restricted farming to camp land. Refugees nevertheless developed vegetable gardens, fish ponds, animal raising and workshops making clothes, shoes and hammocks. Their work and organization coexisted with restrictions on movement.\n\nColomoncagua had a different outcome. In 1983, Honduran authorities told its Salvadoran refugees to relocate or return to El Salvador. UNHCR supported relocation but opposed forced repatriation; NGOs backed refugee resistance. The authorities withdrew the demand and the refugees were not forced to leave, although insecurity and internal disputes persisted. El Salvador’s formal peace agreement came in 1992. UNHCR notes that many refugees returned before the peace agreements, without establishing that everyone returned or recovered their former homes and property.", "contested": "This record uses 1979–1992 for the wider displacement. The cited history describes repression in the 1970s and refugee arrivals from 1980; it does not independently establish 1979 as the first year of this movement. The detailed evidence here concerns refuge in Honduras and does not verify every cause, location or duration of internal displacement in El Salvador. The original 1999 regional overview has not been checked against its full text. Refugee stocks, relocated groups and people returning instead of relocating are different categories and are not added into a total.", "note": "These were displaced civilians, including people who resisted relocation or chose return under constrained conditions. Refuge in another country did not itself make them colonizing settlers. The 1992 agreement marks a political boundary, not a verified last departure or universal restoration of homes and property.", "placeGloss": "La Virtud was a Honduran border community where Salvadorans sought refuge. Mesa Grande was the more distant site to which a documented group was relocated after November 1981. Colomoncagua was another camp near the Salvadoran border; its 1983 relocation threat was withdrawn. The chapter does not identify every refugee’s home community or travel path.", "geometryExplanation": "Qualified town/locality anchors show the documented La Virtud-to-Mesa Grande relocation following the 16 November 1981 incursion. The connecting line is schematic, not a traced travel path or all Salvadoran displacement during1979–1992. Exact camp boundaries and individual home communities remain unresolved.", "id": "modern-el-salvador-civil-war-displacement", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1979–1992", "periods": [ { "start": 1979, "end": 1992, "yearLabel": "1979–1992", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "sources": [ "v7_el_salvador_unhcr_chapter5" ], "origins": [ { "name": "La Virtud — town orientation", "lon": -88.69482, "lat": 14.06137, "routeUse": "forced_route_origin" } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Mesa Grande — locality orientation", "lon": -88.9, "lat": 14.43333 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped", "zoomFloor": 3, "viewPadding": 0.7, "markerScale": 0.35, "cameraContext": [ { "lon": -89.2, "lat": 13.85 }, { "lon": -88.4, "lat": 14.6 } ], "mapLabel": "La Virtud → Mesa Grande · one documented relocation" }, { "name": "Merv: capture, captivity and repeated destruction", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "displaced": [ "Residents of Merv driven out of the city; selected artisans and children taken into captivity, and survivors exposed to renewed attacks." ], "settlers": [ "Tolui’s Mongol army and later Mongol commanders and detachments; officials installed after the capture." ], "evidence": "Juvaini describes the forced evacuation, selection of captives and repeated killing at Merv. Peter Jackson’s critical comparison supports caution about the chronicle’s enormous death totals. Neither source supplies a reliable population count or a complete history of the captives.", "story": "In Juvaini’s account, Tolui arrived at Merv on 25 February 1221. After inspecting the defenses and fighting at the gates, his army surrounded the town. Its governor sought terms and was reassured by promises. The Mongols then drove the inhabitants onto the plain, a process the chronicle says took four days and nights, and separated women from men.\n\nJuvaini says the Mongols selected 400 artisans and an unspecified number of girls and boys for captivity and ordered the remaining population killed. This is an attributed account of selection, not a surviving register of 400 named people. The narrative also describes destruction of the outworks and citadel and the burning of part of a mosque.\n\nThe destruction was not a single episode after which nobody remained. Juvaini describes people emerging from hiding, others returning, and renewed attacks. He also records the appointment of officials after the first capture and later attempts to restore walls, cultivation and the dam. These efforts did not prevent further killings and destruction.\n\nA later passage names a destination for one group. Barmas, the Mongol official at Merv, took artisans and others out of the city to proceed to Bokhara. Around a revolt dated 7 November 1221, he departed with those accompanying him. Juvaini says Barmas died in Bokhara and the people from Merv remained there. The passage does not establish that these were the same 400 artisans and children selected at the first capture.\n\nSubsequent Mongol forces again attacked inhabitants and people who had come back. Juvaini’s closing account includes destroyed crops and scattered survivors. It supports severe depopulation and repeated coerced removal, while leaving the final number of survivors and the later lives of the captives uncertain.", "contested": "The record uses 1221–1222 for the sequence. The cited chapter dates the first arrival and a later revolt within 1221, but does not establish an exact final departure or killing date in 1222. Its million-person death claims cannot serve as a reliable total: Jackson points to the tension between a reported 1.3 million dead and later arrivals and survivors. There is also a numerical discrepancy in the later massacre account: Boyle’s translation says a hundred thousand, while Jackson’s discussion says 10,000. No total or inferred proportion is adopted.", "note": "Captivity, flight, killing and surviving residence were different outcomes. The later Bokhara passage establishes a particular connection, not the destination of every captive or the permanent disappearance of everyone from Merv. It does not establish how all the selected artisans were subsequently employed.", "placeGloss": "Merv was the city attacked. Juvaini names Bokhara, now commonly spelled Bukhara, as the destination where a later group from Merv remained. The locations and journeys of all the people selected at the first capture are not established.", "geometryExplanation": "Heritage-site reference points orient Merv’s historic urban complex and Bukhara’s historic centre. The connection represents the later group reported to have accompanied Barmas to Bukhara, not the first 400 artisans and children or everyone displaced from Merv. It is schematic, not a traced journey or an exact capture, departure or arrival location. The full event retains its 1221–1222 range; the exact final 1222 date remains unresolved.", "id": "medieval-mongol-merv-selective-captivity-and-depopulation", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1221–1222", "periods": [ { "start": 1221, "end": 1222, "yearLabel": "1221–1222", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "sources": [ "v7_merv_juvaini", "v7_merv_jackson" ], "origins": [ { "name": "Merv — historic urban complex reference", "lon": 62.17489166666667, "lat": 37.664830555555554 } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Bukhara — historic centre reference", "lon": 64.42861, "lat": 39.77472 } ], "geometryStatus": "mapped", "mapLabel": "Merv → Bukhara · one later reported movement", "zoomFloor": 5, "viewPadding": 1, "markerScale": 0.5, "cameraContext": [ { "lon": 64.42861, "lat": 41.46263155555556 } ] }, { "id": "prospective-indochina-cambodia-preah-vihear-refoulement", "name": "Cambodian refugees forced back at Preah Vihear", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "June 1979", "periods": [ { "start": 1979, "end": 1979, "yearLabel": "June 1979", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Cambodian refugees rounded up in Thai border camps and forced into Cambodia at Preah Vihear." ], "settlers": [ "Thai soldiers carrying out the roundup and forced return; the ICRC and UNHCR appear in the protection response, not as settlers." ], "evidence": "UNHCR’s retrospective history describes a specific forced return in June 1979. It reports the scale of the roundup and an uncertain death toll, and criticizes the organization’s own failure to protest.", "story": "In June 1979, Thai soldiers rounded up Cambodian refugees in border camps and forced them down the steep mountainside at Preah Vihear into Cambodia. UNHCR’s retrospective account puts the group at more than 42,000 people. It reports that at least several hundred, and possibly several thousand, were killed in the minefields below.\n\nOne day after the pushbacks began, the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross publicly appealed for them to stop. He was ordered to leave Thailand. UNHCR’s history says that the organization feared an adverse Thai reaction and effectively kept silent. It describes the operation as refoulement, or forced return, and acknowledges its failure to protest.\n\nThe operation moved refugees back across the border into Cambodia. Their earlier flight out of the country was a separate movement; this account concerns the June roundup and forced return.", "contested": "The number forced back and the uncertain fatality range come from one institutional retrospective, not an independently checked person-by-person count. The chapter does not establish each refugee’s earlier route, the fate of every survivor or how many later fled again. Its underlying witnesses have not been separately checked here.", "note": "The June operation is distinct from Thailand’s October 1979 opening to further Cambodian arrivals and the later holding centres. Regional refugee and resettlement totals do not measure this forced-return group and are not added to it.", "placeGloss": "The source places the roundup in Thai border camps and the forced descent at Preah Vihear into Cambodia, with minefields below. It does not name the individual origin camps or identify each person’s home community.", "geometryExplanation": "The named mountainside and direction of movement are documented, but the exact descent, origin-camp locations and minefield boundary have not been established. A temple location would not by itself locate the forced descent. No precise point or route is shown.", "sources": [ "v7_preah_vihear_unhcr_chapter4", "v7_preah_vihear_kamm_geographic_context" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geographicContext": "In a contemporary report reproduced in the Congressional Record on 15 June 1979, Henry Kamm described buses moving northeast along the Thai side of the border from the Aranyaprathet area toward the Preah Vihear border landscape. These markers show a town and a temple for orientation; they do not locate an origin camp, assembly point, crossing or forced descent. The report does not establish that everyone in the later UNHCR total came from one camp or followed one route.", "mapLabel": "Preah Vihear · exact 1979 crossing/descent location not established" }, { "id": "prospective-indochina-laos-hmong-1986-pushback", "name": "Hmong asylum seekers pushed back to Laos", "region": "South & Southeast Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1986", "periods": [ { "start": 1986, "end": 1986, "yearLabel": "1986", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Several hundred Hmong reported pushed back from Thailand to Laos in 1986." ], "settlers": [ "Thai authorities in the border pushback and screening system; UNHCR had an observation and appeal role in screening. The chapter does not identify the units carrying out the reported pushbacks." ], "evidence": "UNHCR’s retrospective history records border reports of several hundred Hmong pushed back to Laos in 1986. It supplies no exact count or individual account of those returns.", "story": "In 1986, several hundred Hmong were reported pushed back from Thailand to Laos. UNHCR’s retrospective history attributes this account to reports from the border. The passage identifies a forced return across the border but does not follow the families to their destinations in Laos.\n\nThailand had announced a border screening process for Laotian arrivals in July 1985. Immigration officials conducted interviews, which UNHCR legal officers could observe. People recognized as refugees were sent to camps; UNHCR could appeal rejected applications before detention pending return. The chapter reports that hardly any of the Laotians interviewed by the end of 1986 were Hmong. The reported Hmong pushbacks therefore cannot be counted as the full screened population or treated as a documented set of rejected applications.\n\nThe chapter says Thailand’s position toward the Hmong eased somewhat by early 1988. That later change does not establish what happened to the people pushed back in 1986.", "contested": "The scale is a reported magnitude, not a verified census or a numerical range. The underlying border reports were not separately consulted. The passage gives no exact crossing, individual destination, death toll or account of these families’ livelihoods after return. Limited documentation does not establish low harm or zero deaths.", "note": "This case concerns the 1986 forced return to Laos. Earlier outward flight is a separate movement and must not be added as another set of unique people. The chapter’s later figures for screened applicants, voluntary repatriation and rejected asylum seekers describe other periods and cannot establish this group’s size or treatment.", "placeGloss": "The reported movement was from Thailand back into Laos. The source does not locate the crossings or the families’ destinations. Ban Vinai and Na Pho are described as camps for admitted refugees, not established departure points for this pushback group.", "geometryExplanation": "Country labels provide regional orientation on the atlas’s land map. The source documents forced return from Thailand into Laos, but does not establish the exact crossings or destinations. No camp, crossing point or event route is plotted.", "sources": [ "v7_hmong1986_unhcr_chapter4" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "mapLabel": "Thailand to Laos · exact 1986 crossing unknown" }, { "id": "medieval-mongol-urgench-destruction-and-artisan-removal", "name": "Old Urgench: destruction and captive removal", "region": "Russia & Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1221–before 1232 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1221, "end": 1232, "yearLabel": "1221–before 1232 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Residents of Gurganj, or old Urgench, including artisans, children and young women taken captive, and men selected for execution in Juvaini’s account." ], "settlers": [ "Mongol forces sent by Chinggis Khan under Chaghadai and Ögedei; the sources do not establish the composition of the later city’s resident population." ], "evidence": "Juvaini’s chronicle describes the capture and separation of the inhabitants. Peter Jackson examines the conflicting accounts and unreliable totals; his account of artisan removal draws on Juvaini, rather than an independent census.", "story": "Mongol forces besieged Gurganj, the Khwarazmian capital also called old Urgench, in 1221. Juvaini describes resistance in its streets and lanes, the destruction of houses, and the capture of the city quarter by quarter. The conquerors drove the inhabitants into the open.\n\nIn his account, artisans and craftsmen were separated from the rest, children and young women were enslaved and taken captive, and the remaining men were assigned to soldiers for execution. He later states that the artisans were divided up and sent east. The account establishes a distinction between killing and captive removal, but does not identify the artisans’ receiving towns or their route.\n\nJackson reports that Ibn al-Athir, writing before 630 AH / 1232–1233 CE, had heard of a new city built by the conquerors near the old capital. This records nearby rebuilding after destruction; it does not establish who populated the new city or whether the captives returned.", "contested": "The chroniclers’ totals cannot support a reliable count of those killed or removed. Juvaini gives enormous figures for artisans and executions, yet declines to repeat another death total because he disbelieves it. Accounts also differ over flooding and the extent of survival. Jackson’s statement that the entire population perished sits uneasily with the artisans, children and young women taken captive in Juvaini’s narrative. Neither complete annihilation nor a numerical population loss is established here.", "note": "The interval “1221–before 1232 CE” combines the conquest with the later report of nearby rebuilding. Its endpoint is a source-based bound: Jackson places Ibn al-Athir’s writing before 630 AH / 1232–1233 CE. It is not an exact foundation date or evidence that killing and deportation continued until 1232.", "placeGloss": "Gurganj or old Urgench is identified in Boyle’s translation with Kunya-Urgench. It is distinct from the modern Uzbek city of Urgench. Juvaini’s “countries of the East” does not identify individual receiving settlements.", "geometryExplanation": "Old Urgench is named in the sources, but the precise places where people were assembled and removed are not established. The eastern destinations and routes of the captive artisans remain unspecified.", "sources": [ "v7_urgench_juvaini", "v7_urgench_jackson", "v7_urgench_icomos_chronology" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geographicContext": "The square marks the southern section of the UNESCO archaeological site at Kunya-Urgench, for regional orientation. It does not locate the 1221 city boundary, an assembly or execution place, or a point of departure. The artisans’ eastern destinations and route remain unknown; no journey is drawn.", "mapLabel": "Old Urgench · removal locations and eastern destinations unknown" }, { "id": "af-tanzania-operation-vijiji", "name": "Compulsory Ujamaa villagization in Tanzania", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1973–1976", "periods": [ { "start": 1973, "end": 1976, "yearLabel": "1973–1976", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Rural Tanzanian households compelled to move into concentrated villages; detailed evidence here concerns Mtwara in the southeast." ], "settlers": [ "The Tanzanian government and TANU party; in Mtwara, TANU Youth League and People’s Militia members carried out forced resettlement." ], "evidence": "Lal’s study documents compulsory movement in Mtwara during 1973–1975. A World Bank sector report describes the national directive and village residence through the end of 1976. Neither source supplies a verified count of people forced to move for this case.", "story": "In September 1973, Tanzania’s ruling party directed rural people to live in villages by 1976. The national drive followed years of Ujamaa policy that had promoted voluntary settlement while also involving growing pressure and some local forced removals. Villages were intended to bring people closer to schools, health services and agricultural support, and to encourage cooperation.\n\nIn Mtwara, southeastern Tanzania, the compulsory phase changed both dispersed settlement and smaller villages already formed under Ujamaa. Priya Lal describes TANU Youth League and People’s Militia members forcibly moving people who had initially refused to relocate, along with residents of small villages, into larger settlements during 1973–1975. Earlier village registration had sometimes renamed existing settlements without requiring anyone to move.\n\nLal’s later interviews record different experiences of the changes. Many forcibly relocated elders described losing property and access to permanent farms. Some remembered impoverishment and destruction; others criticized the coercion while continuing to value village cooperation. Promised services and practical assistance also varied. These accounts describe local experiences, not a uniform outcome for every Tanzanian village.\n\nThe World Bank’s retrospective report describes the forced relocation following the 1973 directive and reports village residence at the end of 1976. That national deadline and reporting point frame this case’s closing year; they do not establish when the last compulsory move occurred.", "contested": "The sources establish coercion but do not provide a verified forced-mover total or a death toll for this event. National totals of people living in registered villages include a different population from those compelled to relocate. Lal’s detailed evidence comes from three Mtwara villages and retrospective interviews, and cannot establish how every locality experienced the campaign.", "note": "This case concerns state-directed resettlement within Tanzania. Its inclusion rests on forced removal and loss of access to homes and farms; the narrative does not establish an incoming foreign settler population. Earlier voluntary moves and existing settlements registered as villages are not counted as forced displacement. Unknown death and displacement totals do not mean zero harm. The comparison profile groups this case under conquest and incorporation; the evidence presented here establishes internal forced resettlement, not military conquest.", "placeGloss": "The campaign had a national policy frame. Mtwara in southeastern mainland Tanzania supplies the detailed local evidence used here. A regional label indicates that evidence focus, not a single removal site or the full distribution of forced moves.", "geometryExplanation": "Mainland Tanzania and Mtwara provide geographic context. The sources do not establish matched journeys for the affected households, so no route or village endpoint is supplied.", "sources": [ "v7_tanzania_lal2012", "v7_tanzania_worldbank1983" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "af-merina-imperial-expansion", "name": "Merina expansion, military colonies and coerced labour", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "island", "dates": "c. 1790–1895", "periods": [ { "start": 1790, "end": 1895, "yearLabel": "c. 1790–1895", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "People subjected to Merina conquest, enslavement and compulsory labour, including Betsileo and Betsimisaraka communities. Merina subjects also owed compulsory service; large parts of Sakalava country remained outside effective Merina rule." ], "settlers": [ "The Merina monarchy, army, officials and allied elites, including soldiers established in military colonies." ], "evidence": "Gwyn Campbell’s economic history and study of unfree labour describe land seizure, military colonies, enslavement and compulsory service. Both works are by the same historian; they do not provide independent counts of people killed or displaced.", "story": "From the 1790s, the Merina monarchy expanded from Imerina in Madagascar’s central highlands. Its armies sought control of people, land, cattle and trade. Under Radama I, conquest included the establishment of soldier colonies on farmland in northern Betsileo and around Lake Alaotra. Campbell describes destruction and famine in Ankay, where campaigns targeted a region on the route to the east coast.\n\nThe British alliance of 1820 provided military assistance in return for ending slave exports. It did not abolish slavery within the expanding empire. Campaigns supplied enslaved captives, while the court also relied on fanompoana: compulsory, unpaid military and civilian service imposed on Merina and non-Merina subjects. Soldiers, skilled workers and other labourers faced different demands. Enslaved people imported from East Africa formed a distinct part of the labour population, rather than another count of those captured in Madagascar.\n\nCampbell describes Radama’s early-1820s order for armies in non-Merina regions to kill males aged ten and over and enslave women and children. That order does not establish how many were killed. His account also identifies groups of Antaimoro and Antaifasy people forcibly resettled on east-coast plantations during the first half of the nineteenth century. This specific relocation is one part of the wider history, not a route shared by everyone affected.\n\nMerina power remained uneven. Central and eastern regions were more firmly controlled, while much of the south and west remained independent or contested. Campbell describes flight from slavery and compulsory labour, as well as resistance to the imperial court. The intensity of military service changed: campaigns against other Malagasy peoples largely subsided from 1853 to 1880, before service became more severe during the 1880s and early 1890s.\n\nIn 1895, French forces captured Antananarivo as imperial troops deserted. This closes the case’s account of the Merina imperial project. It does not mark the end of coercion in Madagascar, nor make the whole preceding century one uninterrupted campaign.", "contested": "The sources document military settlement and forced removal, but do not establish islandwide settler replacement or uniform Merina control. Campbell challenges earlier accounts that treated Madagascar as a unified kingdom and sharply contrasted Radama’s policies with those of Ranavalona I. Those earlier works and the primary reports he cites were not independently read here. Regional reports of devastation, army losses and slave-population figures cannot supply a verified death or displacement total for this entire event.", "note": "The date range c. 1790–1895 covers a changing imperial project, including conquest, military settlement, enslavement and compulsory labour. The reported plantation transfers belong to the first half of the nineteenth century. Slave imports, captured people and repeated labour service are different populations or measures and are not added together. Unknown totals do not mean zero harm.", "placeGloss": "Imerina lies in the central highlands. Northern Betsileo and the Lake Alaotra area are named in Campbell’s account of soldier colonies. The regional names provide orientation; they do not identify every colony, place of captivity or plantation receiving displaced people.", "geometryExplanation": "Madagascar provides geographic context for the full period. The sources used here do not establish precise colony sites or matched removal routes. No point, route or shaded area is supplied as a map of Merina conquest.", "sources": [ "v7_merina_campbell_revised_fr", "v7_merina_campbell_unfree2007" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "modern-peru-internal-conflict-displacement", "name": "Peru internal armed conflict displacement", "region": "South America", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1980–2000", "periods": [ { "start": 1980, "end": 2000, "yearLabel": "1980–2000", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Civilians uprooted within Peru, many from rural Indigenous and Quechua-speaking communities in the Andes and central forest." ], "settlers": [ "Shining Path (PCP-SL), Peruvian security forces, and—in some Amazonian localities—the MRTA; abusive self-defense groups also caused displacement." ], "evidence": "Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission describes internal displacement caused by attacks, threats, fear and disrupted livelihoods. It estimated approximately half a million people displaced during 1980–2000, while warning that the available migration data did not give a precise count.", "story": "Violence drove civilians from homes and farmland across Peru during the internal armed conflict of 1980–2000. Shining Path attacks, killings and threats made communities unsafe; abuses by state forces also prompted flight. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission identifies the MRTA as a cause of displacement in some Amazonian localities and notes that self-defense groups also drove people away when they committed abuses. These actors did not operate everywhere in the same way.\n\nSome people left after an attack or direct threat, and some were ordered to move by security forces. Others fled because prolonged insecurity and the loss of livelihoods made remaining untenable. The commission’s account includes both these forms of coercion. It does not describe every displaced family as having been transported or assigned a destination. The commission also reports that, in the central forest, some Asháninka and Nomatsiguenga people were abducted or forcibly concentrated in Shining Path camps and made to provide agricultural labor or military support. This was a distinct form of forced movement within the wider displacement crisis.\n\nMany of those uprooted came from rural Indigenous communities and spoke Quechua. Movement often occurred in stages: from a community to a nearby town, then to a provincial or larger city. Lima, Huamanga, Huancayo and Ica became major places of refuge. Others remained within their home department or sought shelter in rural communities, including in the central forest. Some families moved repeatedly as violence followed them.\n\nLeaving could mean losing access to land, housing and belongings. In cities, displaced people faced poverty, insecure work and ethnic or linguistic discrimination. Many kept ties to their home communities. Some returned, with an important period of returns in 1994–1996; others settled for the longer term in cities or moved again. Return did not necessarily restore their property or former livelihoods.\n\nThe commission estimated approximately half a million internally displaced people over 1980–2000. That figure is an approximation, not a precise census. Its discussion uses migration comparisons and an uncertain adjustment for people who moved for economic or other reasons. The end of the reporting period in 2000 did not mean that displacement and its consequences had ended.", "contested": "The estimate is affected by incomplete data and difficulty separating conflict displacement from other migration. Different tables cover different periods and populations; their totals cannot be added together, and repeated moves and returns are not additional people. The proportion of displaced people from rural Indigenous communities does not measure the displacement risk or death risk of those communities. No death toll among displaced people or matched community-population denominator is established here.", "note": "This case concerns displacement within Peru. The account includes both flight under coercive conditions and directly ordered movement, without treating them as identical. Overseas destinations are not plotted from the available evidence. Approximate displacement and unknown mortality are separate measures; missing information does not mean zero harm. The commission also records colonists occupying some abandoned Indigenous territories in the central forest, complicating return. The broad displacement classification does not mean that every locality lacked replacement settlement or captive labor.", "placeGloss": "The Andes and central forest provide important origin contexts; Lima, Huamanga, Huancayo and Ica are documented major refuges. These are broad geographic references, not a complete set of origins or destinations for every displaced person.", "geometryExplanation": "The report names origin regions and refuge cities but describes varied, sometimes repeated journeys. No individual route, village endpoint or displacement footprint is supplied here.", "sources": [ "v7_peru_cvr_displacement" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "modern-south-tyrol-option", "name": "South Tyrol Option Agreement population transfer", "region": "Central Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1939–1943", "periods": [ { "start": 1939, "end": 1943, "yearLabel": "1939–1943", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "German- and Ladin-speaking South Tyroleans facing pressure to leave their homeland or remain under Italian assimilation." ], "settlers": [ "Fascist Italian and Nazi German governments and their resettlement agencies; South Tyrolean emigrants received mainly in Austrian territory then incorporated into the German Reich." ], "evidence": "The 1939 agreement placed residents under pressure to choose between emigration with German citizenship and remaining under Fascist Italianization. Declarations in favor of emigration greatly exceeded actual departures, and implementation remained incomplete.", "story": "In 1939, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany agreed on a population option for South Tyrol. Residents faced a coercive choice: leave their homeland for the German Reich or remain under an Italian regime that sought to suppress their distinct language and national identity. Earlier Italianization had restricted minority schools, public language and organizations. Italian settlement and the industrial development of Bolzano formed part of this background; they were not all consequences of the 1939 agreement.\n\nThe two governments did not pursue identical goals. Nazi authorities sought the transfer of the German-speaking population. Italian officials were divided: some wanted broad removal, while many expected supposed political agitators to leave and others to assimilate. When declarations in favor of Germany became overwhelming, Italian authorities tried inconsistently to persuade residents to stay, without offering reliable reassurance that their distinct identity would be protected.\n\nAn option declaration was not the same as a departure. Some declarations expressed rejection of Italian rule without a settled intention to emigrate. People who did leave faced organized resettlement and property-transfer procedures. The Tyrolean archive describes emigrants passing through Innsbruck, apart from the separate Canal Valley group, for reception and citizenship processing. Most of the resettled population recorded by the archive lived in Austrian territory then incorporated into the Reich. This broad account does not establish every family’s journey or destination.\n\nDepartures slowed after the initial movement. Property valuations and economic difficulties delayed relocation; reports from dissatisfied emigrants also discouraged some who had opted to leave. German resettlement institutions established language schools within South Tyrol, contributing to a contradictory situation in which German institutional influence grew even while the transfer remained incomplete. German occupation after Italy’s September 1943 armistice changed the political setting, and the resettlement operation was officially stopped that year.\n\nSome emigrants returned after the war, initially without authorization and later through a formal option to regain Italian citizenship. Others remained abroad. Those later returns are aftermath to this 1939–1943 case, not additional people displaced during its window.", "contested": "The sources report different totals for declarations, departures and civilian resettlement. The archive warns that official totals cover several treaty areas and can include men counted through military conscription while still living in Italy. Its civilian estimate and the article’s departure estimates are not interchangeable or a single statistical range. No matched displacement total, death toll or community-risk percentage is adopted here.", "note": "Pressure to leave or assimilate was coercion, but it does not establish identical preferences or directly imposed transportation for every emigrant. Declarations are kept separate from actual movement. Unknown impact counts do not mean that no harm occurred.", "placeGloss": "South Tyrol is the origin context. Innsbruck is documented transit and administrative context; Austrian territory within the wartime German Reich is a broad receiving context. The Canal Valley exception is not used to widen this case to every treaty area.", "geometryExplanation": "The sources establish broad origin, transit and receiving contexts, but not individual household routes or exact departure and arrival sites. No route, endpoint or historical displacement footprint is drawn in this draft.", "sources": [ "v7_south_tyrol_option_article", "v7_south_tyrol_archive_umsiedlung", "v7_south_tyrol_province_option" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "medieval-mongol-herat-rebellion-punitive-destruction", "name": "Herat after the revolt: punitive reconquest", "region": "Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "local", "dates": "1221–1222 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1221, "end": 1222, "yearLabel": "1221–1222 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Residents remaining in Herat after the first capture; previously removed weaver households are a separate cohort." ], "settlers": [ "Mongol punitive forces under Eljigidei, dispatched by Chinggis Khan." ], "evidence": "Modern historical accounts describe punitive reconquest, mass killing, enslavement of some women, and destruction. Precise deaths, displacement totals and survivor proportions are not established.", "story": "Herat faced two distinct Mongol captures. After the first, Tolui spared the general population while killing the garrison. When residents subsequently killed the installed governors, a punitive expedition under Eljigidei returned. Following a siege lasting several months, the city fell in 1222.\n\nThe reconquest brought mass killing and destruction. Peter Jackson's account describes the enslavement of some women and the burning of the city. The historical accounts also describe troops returning to search for survivors. These descriptions establish the severity of the attack; they do not supply a reliable count of those killed or displaced.\n\nThe damage extended beyond buildings. The destruction of the Harirud valley's canal network disrupted agriculture and livelihoods. Herat and its surrounding region suffered demographic decline, with economic recovery occurring over a much longer period. Later rebuilding is part of the aftermath, not evidence that the losses were immediately reversed.\n\nThe weaver households removed before this punitive reconquest belong to a separate atlas case. Their later return must not be counted as the return of everyone displaced or captured during the reconquest.", "contested": "The sources disagree about the siege's exact duration. Later accounts give million-plus death totals that cannot be used as reliable estimates. Reported household totals, military numbers and survivor counts do not establish a matched community denominator. Deaths and displacement therefore remain separate unknown counts; unknown does not mean no harm. Captive destinations are not established here.", "note": "The inherited scientific profile is carried forward unchanged. Its family label does not erase the mass killing or captivity described here. No documented captive destination or labor condition is inferred from enslavement alone; profile scores are not death or displacement counts.", "placeGloss": "Herat and the surrounding Harirud valley are the geographic context. Later captive destinations are not established.", "geometryExplanation": "No captive route, massacre footprint, or precise site boundary is established by these sources. The labels orient the account around Herat and the Harirud valley. They do not locate the massacre, delineate destruction, or trace captive journeys. The town reference is modern; the event’s precise geography remains unknown.", "sources": [ "v7_herat_punitive_jackson", "v7_herat_punitive_iranica", "v7_herat_punitive_eljigidei", "v7_herat_punitive_geography" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "asia-bhutan-lhotshampa-expulsion", "name": "Expulsion of Lhotshampa from Bhutan", "region": "South Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1988–1993", "periods": [ { "start": 1988, "end": 1993, "yearLabel": "1988–1993", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Nepali-speaking Lhotshampa residents of southern Bhutan, including families reclassified as non-nationals, pressured to leave, or fleeing repression." ], "settlers": [ "Bhutanese citizenship authorities, local administrators and security forces; departure and refuge involved different circumstances for different families." ], "evidence": "Contemporary Amnesty International investigations document contested citizenship classifications, repression and pressure to leave, including reported coercion behind “voluntary migration” forms. Later UNHCR reporting establishes prolonged exile and resettlement as aftermath.", "story": "Beginning in 1988, a census in southern Bhutan put the citizenship of many Nepali-speaking Lhotshampa residents in question. Amnesty International recorded accounts from people who had held citizenship cards but were reclassified as non-nationals. Some said officials rejected their documents because they could not produce the required proof of residence in 1958. Mixed classifications within a family could put the whole household under pressure to leave.\n\nThe census coincided with policies promoting northern Bhutanese cultural practices and national dress. Opposition grew, and demonstrations in 1990 were followed by arrests and repression. Amnesty collected testimony of torture, including rape, and of people fleeing because they feared further abuse. It also investigated accounts of attacks and intimidation by opposition groups; those acts did not make every protester or southern resident responsible for violence.\n\nBy 1992–1993, families also described administrative pressure to leave. Officials threatened fines or imprisonment, confiscated documents, or required signatures on “voluntary migration” forms. Some people accepted compensation under threat; others said payment was inadequate or never arrived. Refugee testimony described house demolitions and the expulsion of communities after attacks attributed to government opponents. A signed form or payment did not, by itself, demonstrate a free choice to leave.\n\nBhutan’s government disputed allegations of forced emigration. The king issued a decree against forcibly evicting Bhutanese citizens, urged people to stay, and ordered investigations; some local officials were disciplined for property abuses. Amnesty nevertheless continued to receive accounts of coercion by local administrators and security personnel. These conflicting accounts require distinguishing declared policy from reported local practice and the circumstances of individual departures.\n\nMany uprooted families reached refugee camps in eastern Nepal. Citizenship and return remained disputed in bilateral talks in 1993, and reports of new departures continued in 1994, beyond this case’s reporting window. Exile then lasted for years. From 2007, a UNHCR-supported program resettled many refugees in third countries, including the United States, Canada and Australia. That later history included children born during exile; it is not another count of people expelled during 1988–1993.", "contested": "Refugee accounts and official explanations differ. The sources combine interviews, government replies and reported investigations rather than a complete register of departures. Dated camp populations and later resettlement totals cover different people and periods, including children born in exile. They cannot be added together or treated as a matched 1988–1993 displacement total. No death toll or population-risk percentage is established here.", "note": "Flight from feared abuse and directly compelled departure were related but distinct experiences. Exile and dispossession are established in these accounts; the scale and organization of replacement settlement or a distinct incoming forced-labor population are not established by these passages. Unknown impact totals do not mean that no harm occurred.", "placeGloss": "Southern Bhutan is the broad origin context; camps in Jhapa and Morang in eastern Nepal are documented places of refuge. These regional references do not identify every family’s departure site or destination.", "geometryExplanation": "The sources describe varied departures and refuge, without establishing individual journeys or exact event endpoints for this whole case. No route or displacement footprint is drawn. Later third-country resettlement is aftermath beyond 1988–1993.", "sources": [ "v7_bhutan_amnesty_1992", "v7_bhutan_amnesty_forcible_exile", "v7_bhutan_unhcr_resettlement_2015" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "af-ethiopian-derg-resettlement-villagization", "name": "Derg resettlement and compulsory villagization in Ethiopia", "region": "Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1978–1991", "periods": [ { "start": 1978, "end": 1991, "yearLabel": "1978–1991", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Rural residents compelled into planned villages; northern people subjected to interregional resettlement; receiving communities losing land, including Anuak communities in Gambela and the Baro area." ], "settlers": [ "The Derg government, military and resettlement agencies; incoming northern resettlers included people themselves subjected to coercion." ], "evidence": "Africa Watch’s 1991 report documents compulsory concentration, mixed forms of recruitment into interregional resettlement, receiving-community land loss, imposed work and lasting subsistence harm. Its regional accounts and estimates have different scopes.", "story": "From 1978, Ethiopia’s Derg government used compulsory rural relocation as a means of controlling people and land. Two related programs must be distinguished. Villagization concentrated people from scattered homesteads or existing communities into planned villages, often within their own region. Interregional resettlement moved people from the northern highlands into western and southern receiving areas. Both disrupted rural life, but they did not involve identical journeys, populations or forms of coercion.\n\nAfrica Watch’s 1991 report describes early compulsory concentration in the southeast during 1978–1982, including extensive villagization in Bale. In these counterinsurgency areas, the government sought to control residents’ movements and deny guerrillas access to food and support. Officials could order residents to move by a deadline; soldiers sometimes destroyed homes without warning. Later implementation in Harerghe involved armed removals, punishment of objectors and destruction of houses, crops and livestock. These regional accounts establish severe violence without showing that every village experienced the same methods.\n\nThe famine-era interregional campaign began in late 1984 and proceeded in three main phases ending in March 1988. The government presented it as famine relief and agricultural development. Africa Watch also identifies counterinsurgency and control of the peasantry as purposes. Recruitment varied: some people initially volunteered in desperate circumstances, while others faced pressure over access to aid, quotas, detention or armed roundups. Guarded transport and the separation of family members compounded the harm. Famine-driven movement and directly imposed relocation therefore belong to the same history of coercive conditions without being interchangeable experiences.\n\nReceiving areas were inhabited landscapes, not empty land. Africa Watch records the eviction of Anuak communities for irrigation schemes on the Baro River in 1979, when northern Amhara farmers were brought to work the schemes. Resettlement in Gambela during 1984–1986 brought further land confiscation. In June 1986, Anuak residents were compelled into villages integrated with resettlement sites; the report cites an account describing these as resembling forced-labor camps. Host communities and incoming resettlers could both suffer coercion. Later violence against resettlement sites also endangered settlers and must not be treated as another action by the Derg.\n\nVillagization expanded beyond the early war zones, with implementation varying by region. Moving homes could separate farmers from crops, pasture and water, interrupt cultivation, and damage subsistence. In parts of Harerghe, Africa Watch reports compulsory unpaid work on state farms and enforced work routines; it also describes forced labor on public projects. These are positive accounts of imposed work, not proof that every villagized person belonged to a distinct imported labor population.\n\nVillagization was abandoned in March 1990. People dismantled collective arrangements, returned to former homesteads or laid claim to them in anticipation of moving. Reversal was uneven: the report describes continuing agricultural harm in 1991 and resettlement sites dependent on relief during 1985–1991. The case ends with the Derg’s fall in 1991, not with a claim that fresh removals continued uniformly throughout the entire period or that everyone recovered their home and land.", "contested": "Africa Watch relied substantially on secondary research and refugee testimony and describes restrictions on access to government-controlled areas. The underlying interviews and cited studies have not all been independently inspected here. Government-reported villagization coverage, interregional mover estimates, local host losses and returns describe different populations and periods; they cannot be added into a single displacement total. The report’s rough excess-mortality calculation concerns a narrower resettlement cohort and includes uncertain assumptions. No whole-case death total, displacement total or affected-community percentage is established here.", "note": "The inherited comparison profile shows zero for imported unfree labor. That does not establish that coerced work was absent: the report documents imposed work in particular places. Local compulsory labor and a distinct population brought from elsewhere for unfree labor require separate assessment. The profile is preserved pending that scientific follow-up. Unknown impact totals do not mean that no harm occurred.", "placeGloss": "Bale and Harerghe provide southeastern villagization examples; the northern highlands and western and southern receiving areas provide interregional context. Gambela and the Baro River area provide documented examples of host-community land loss. Africa Watch uses provincial conventions from before 1987.", "geometryExplanation": "Local concentration and interregional resettlement are distinct movements. No exact event endpoints, routes or displacement footprints are established for this full case, and none is drawn. Regional labels provide orientation only; they do not reconstruct pre-1987 provincial boundaries.", "sources": [ "v7_derg_africa_watch_evil_days_1991" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "prospective-baltic-operation-priboi-1949", "name": "Operation Priboi deportation from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, March-April 1949", "region": "Europe / Russia and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1949 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1949, "end": 1949, "yearLabel": "March–April 1949", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Families designated as kulaks and families of resistance fighters or alleged supporters in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, including children." ], "settlers": [ "Soviet central and republican security authorities, operational troops and local administrative auxiliaries; the case concerns deported households rather than a separately established replacement-settler population." ], "evidence": "Institutional histories and commission findings establish the coordinated March operation, a documented Lithuanian April follow-up, family removal, dispossession and specific destination/work experiences. Their geographic coverage and reporting periods differ.", "story": "In late March 1949, Soviet security forces carried out Operation Priboi across Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The coordinated deportation targeted households classified as kulaks and families associated with resistance fighters or their supporters. A Soviet government resolution of 29 January supplied the central authority; republican security organs and local officials prepared and carried out the removals. The operation uprooted families, including children, rather than determining individual guilt through a trial.\n\nThe Estonian commission describes the March removals as collective punishment of resistance fighters’ families and people considered actual or potential supporters. In Lithuania, the commission places the operation within a wider campaign against private farming and resistance to Soviet rule. Its account connects deportation lists and property seizure with coercive collectivization. Those broader findings provide context, while the March–April operation remains distinct from other deportation campaigns.\n\nHistorian Arvydas Anušauskas describes Lithuanian security personnel, soldiers and local auxiliaries taking families to railway trains during the March operation. Some intended deportees hid or were absent; additional lists supplied other households. He records shootings during removal and deaths during the journey, including infants. These accounts establish lethal harm without providing a matched death toll for the entire three-republic operation.\n\nThe Lithuanian operation continued with searches for families who had evaded deportation. During 10–20 April, two further trains were assembled at Gubernija station in Šiauliai. Anušauskas records that this contingent was assigned to the Lenzoloto gold mines at Bodaibo. This documented follow-up belongs to the case; later actions beginning in June 1949 and the separate campaigns of 1948 and 1951 do not.\n\nA family account preserved by the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia shows how deportation continued to shape daily life. Alma Biezais and her daughter Alda were removed on 25 March and taken to the Tomsk region, then Parabel. Alma worked on a collective farm, and the family endured inadequate housing and ill health. Her son had been listed but escaped the initial deportation because he was away. Mother and daughter returned to Latvia in 1956. Their later transfers and return are aftermath, not additional people deported in 1949.\n\nThe republics were parts of one coordinated operation, not three additional cases to be counted again. Within it, households encountered different destinations and circumstances. An intended deportation list is not a register of actual removals, and a later transfer between settlements is not another newly displaced person. The evidence supports family deportation, dispossession and documented work assignments; it does not establish one uniform experience for every deportee.", "contested": "The approximate tri-Baltic March total and revised Lithuanian March–April figures cover different periods and overlap. They cannot be added together, and alternative reports are not a confidence interval. Broader Soviet deportation totals and mortality figures from other years are excluded. No reconciled whole-operation displacement total, death total or affected-community percentage is adopted here. Original archival files underlying the published histories have not been independently inspected.", "note": "The inherited comparison profile shows zero for imported unfree labor. That does not establish an absence of coerced labor: the documented Lithuanian April contingent was assigned to gold mines, and the Latvian family account describes work during compulsory exile. These findings require scientific follow-up without treating every deportee as a mine worker or inferring a whole-operation labor share. The existing profile is preserved. Unknown impact totals do not mean no harm occurred.", "placeGloss": "Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are the three origin contexts. Tomsk and Parabel identify one documented Latvian family’s exile; Gubernija station in Šiauliai and Bodaibo identify the Lithuanian April follow-up. These examples do not supply every household’s departure site or destination.", "geometryExplanation": "No exact coordinates, individual routes, event endpoints or displacement footprints are established by this draft. Regional labels provide orientation only; the Latvian family and Lithuanian April contingent must not be mapped as the route of the entire operation.", "sources": [ "v7_priboi_kapo_2023_2024", "v7_priboi_estonia_commission", "v7_priboi_lithuania_conclusions", "v7_priboi_anusauskas", "v7_priboi_latvia_family" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "medieval-ottoman-surgun-balkan-colonization", "name": "Ottoman conquest of the Balkans: surgun transfers and Yoruk-Turkmen colonization of Rumelia", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "c. 1352-c. 1600", "periods": [ { "start": 1352, "end": 1600, "yearLabel": "c. 1352–c. 1600", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Balkan populations subjected to conquest, removal or compulsory resettlement; Anatolian nomads and other people transferred by the Ottoman state. Experiences and legal status varied." ], "settlers": [ "Ottoman rulers and frontier authorities; Anatolian Turkish and Yörük settlers, including compulsory transferees and other migrants. People resettled around the capital formed additional, distinct groups." ], "evidence": "Published historical studies distinguish deportation, military settlement, other migration and regional changes in village life. They draw on chronicles and Ottoman registers; the underlying archival records have not been independently inspected for this draft.", "story": "Ottoman conquest brought soldiers, settlers and displaced people into Rumelia, the empire’s Balkan territories. The opening date of about 1352 refers to Ottoman footholds on the Gallipoli peninsula; it is not the date of Gallipoli’s capture. That followed the earthquake of March 1354. Historian Feridun Emecen describes deaths and flight after the earthquake, followed by Ottoman occupation and the settlement of people brought from Anatolia. Those particular departures should not be described simply as an Ottoman expulsion. Ottoman possession of Gallipoli was also interrupted between 1366 and 1376.\n\nSürgün, or compulsory transfer, was one method of consolidating conquest. Halil İnalcık describes Anatolian nomads sent into the Balkans, Christian military personnel removed from captured fortresses, and settlers given military status or land-revenue assignments. Receiving areas included Thrace, Macedonia and Dobruja. These were different groups and transfers, not one uniform deportation.\n\nThe same historian stresses that state deportation alone cannot explain settlement in Thrace and the Maritsa valley. Other migration mattered too, including an influx from Anatolia associated with Timur’s invasion in 1402. A person’s movement under wartime pressure is not automatically evidence that Ottoman officials directly compelled that person’s arrival.\n\nMilena Petkova’s study of Eastern Upper Thrace follows a more local process through tax registers. Around Eskihisar Zağra, now Stara Zagora, Yörük households participated in an expanding village network during the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. She connects the stabilization of settlements and the adoption of more settled agriculture with environmental conditions and taxation. This is regional evidence, not a description of every Balkan district. Registered households and village sizes cannot by themselves reveal how many individual newcomers had been forcibly moved.\n\nResettlement also served the new capital. İnalcık describes Mehmed II’s transfers from Serbia, Albania, the Morea and Kaffa to Istanbul; among those moved were prisoners of war settled as enslaved peasants in surrounding villages. Their circumstances differed from those of frontier military settlers and other migrants. The case therefore includes related urban and rural transfers as well as Anatolian settlement in Rumelia.\n\nThe period shown here, about 1352 to about 1600, groups a long process for comparison. Its ending is an approximate scope boundary, not a documented date when migration, compulsory transfer or Ottoman rule stopped. Cyprus’s settlement from 1571, settlement confined to Anatolia, and the empire’s much later deportations and refugee resettlement belong to separate cases.", "contested": "The studies do not provide a reconciled number of unique people displaced or killed across this entire period, or the share of all arrivals directly compelled by the state. Taxpayer populations, religious composition, settlement names and individual transfer examples cannot be converted into that denominator. Regional findings and later population patterns do not prove that every locality followed the same path. The 1402 migration account is mediated through İnalcık’s reading of Ottoman tradition, rather than an independently examined register of refugees.", "note": "The inherited comparison profile is preserved. Its imported-unfree-labor value is not a measured percentage of arrivals and does not make every Yörük settler an enslaved laborer. The receiving population included compulsory military and civilian settlers, other migrants, and documented enslaved peasants around Istanbul. Neither tax status nor a settlement’s religious composition establishes an individual’s freedom of movement. Unknown whole-case impact totals do not mean that no harm occurred.", "placeGloss": "Rumelia refers here to Ottoman Balkan settlement contexts, including Thrace, Macedonia and Dobruja. Gallipoli is an early foothold; Eastern Upper Thrace supplies a regional village study; Istanbul and its surroundings are another receiving context. These places do not identify all transfers or their paths.", "geometryExplanation": "Exact event endpoints, routes and territorial footprints remain unknown in this draft. Regional names provide historical context only; no modern border or single route is adopted as the geometry of this long process.", "sources": [ "v7_rumelia_inalcik_1954", "v7_rumelia_petkova_2019", "v7_rumelia_inalcik_tdv_2008", "v7_rumelia_emecen_tdv_1996" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "prospective-fiji-bound-coerced-or-deceptive-labour-recruitment-october-1864-10-october-1874", "name": "Fiji-bound coerced or deceptively recruited Pacific Island labor removal, October 1864–10 October 1874", "region": "Pacific and Oceania", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "October 1864–10 October 1874", "periods": [ { "start": 1864, "end": 1874, "yearLabel": "October 1864–10 October 1874", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Pacific Islanders taken to Fiji through coercive or deceptive recruitment; the size of this subset within the mixed labor trade is unknown." ], "settlers": [ "Private recruiters, shipmasters and intermediaries supplying Fiji planters; the British consul and Cakobau government exercised weak pre-Cession regulation." ], "evidence": "Original historical studies document kidnapping, violence and unenforced labor agreements within a wider trade that also included employment-seeking and repeat recruitment. Exact coercion shares and unique-person totals remain unresolved.", "story": "In October 1864, a recruiting ship left Fiji for the New Hebrides, now Vanuatu; the first imported laborers arrived toward the end of that year. European-owned plantations, especially those producing cotton in the late 1860s and early 1870s, drew workers from other Pacific islands. This case concerns the people taken through coercive or deceptive recruitment within that wider labor stream, up to Fiji’s Cession to Britain on 10 October 1874. It does not treat every Pacific Island worker as kidnapped.\n\nThe trade’s principal recruiting grounds were the New Hebrides and Solomon Islands, with a smaller Gilbert Islands stream beginning in 1866. Recruiters, shipmasters and intermediaries brought people to Fiji, where planters engaged them for labor. Some people sought employment, and some returned for another engagement. Alongside those choices, the historical accounts document coercion and kidnapping. The existence of a contract cannot by itself establish informed agreement to the journey or its terms.\n\nBefore Cession, formal supervision often offered little practical protection. Parnaby describes the British consul trying to assess consent without competent interpreters for the languages recruits spoke. Some voyages rewarded crews for each person recruited. Employers promised food, clothing, wages and return passage, but the consul lacked the legal authority to make planters honor those agreements. A recruit’s ability to report abuse also depended on learning the language and finding a way to make a grievance heard.\n\nThe violence was real, not simply a disputed description of contracts. Parnaby discusses the Young Australian case, in which crew members fired into a hold containing Pacific Islanders, and the later Carl case involving the killing of kidnapped people. These episodes helped expose failures of supervision. They establish serious harm without supplying a death total or showing that every voyage used the same methods.\n\nThe Cakobau government attempted more formal regulation in 1871 and 1872, requiring licensing and scrutiny of engagements. Shlomowitz emphasizes that enforcement remained weak and coercion continued. Parnaby also records violence on plantations. During the financial crisis of 1873–1874, many employers could neither pay workers at the end of their agreements nor finance their return home, prolonging separation beyond the promised term.\n\nCession changed the governing authority; it did not mark an instant end to coercion or to Pacific labor recruitment. This case stops at that administrative boundary. Later Pacific recruitment, Indian indenture from 1879, and the separate Queensland and Peruvian trades are not included. Nor is this a case about European settlers’ claims to Fijian land. Shared islands, employers or colonial institutions do not make those different histories a single event.", "contested": "The surviving figures count contracts and engagements within a mixed trade, not unique people coercively removed. Repeat contracts, calendar-year 1874 records straddling Cession, and later colonial data prevent an exact pre-Cession coerced-person total. Deaths, source-community shares, and the balance between return and staying for this bounded cohort remain unknown. Parnaby’s account contains dated racial and paternalistic judgments; those are not adopted here. His cited archival and court records have not been independently inspected for this draft.", "note": "The comparison profile retains unknown and low-coverage indicators, including imported unfree labor. These limits concern what can be established for the bounded case; they do not mean coercion or harm was absent. The broader parent labor system is not counted alongside this child case.", "placeGloss": "Fiji is the receiving context. The New Hebrides (present-day Vanuatu), Solomon Islands and Gilbert Islands (part of present-day Kiribati) are regional recruiting contexts, not verified endpoints for every coerced journey.", "geometryExplanation": "No exact voyage endpoints, routes or event footprints are established for this complete bounded case. Labels show regional recruiting and receiving contexts, not verified voyage endpoints; no movement line is drawn.", "sources": [ "v7_fiji_shlomowitz_1986", "v7_fiji_parnaby_1956", "v7_fiji_parliament_our_story" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "af-highveld-difaqane-refugee-state-formation", "name": "Highveld Difaqane warfare, refuge, and state formation", "region": "Southern Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "c. 1810–1840", "periods": [ { "start": 1810, "end": 1840, "yearLabel": "c. 1810–1840", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Highveld communities subjected to raiding, captive-taking and flight, including women, children and other noncombatants." ], "settlers": [ "Multiple African political and raiding formations in changing alliances; colonial-frontier traders and settlers were connected to arms, cattle and captive-labor markets. Refuge-seeking newcomers were not all conquerors." ], "evidence": "Original historical arguments establish warfare, coerced labor and refuge while disagreeing over causes, particular participants and responsibility. This regional case is not a single Zulu-driven migration.", "story": "Across the Highveld in the early nineteenth century, warfare and raiding uprooted communities and changed who controlled land, cattle and people. This case covers approximately 1810–1840: a regional history of overlapping conflicts, flight, captivity and political reorganization, rather than one campaign spreading from a single center.\n\nPeople could flee one attack and later raid another community for food or livestock. Alliances shifted among Sotho-Tswana groups, Nguni-speaking formations, Griqua, Kora and other armed groups. Guns, cattle trading and demand for workers connected conflicts in the interior to the expanding Cape frontier. Historians also examine local struggles over resources and political authority; the relative importance of these pressures remains disputed.\n\nThe confrontation at Dithakong, also written Lithakong, in June 1823 exposes both the violence and the difficulties of reconstructing it. Julian Cobbing interpreted it as a planned raid to capture laborers. Elizabeth Eldredge challenged that explanation and the claim that missionaries organized slave raiding. Yet her account also recognizes that captured women and children subsequently entered involuntary work in the Cape or service among Griqua. Disagreement about intentions does not erase those people’s loss of control over their lives.\n\nFlight, capture and refuge were different experiences, even when they occurred within the same upheaval. Some displaced people became captive workers; others sought protection and joined stronger communities. Moshoeshoe’s emerging Basotho polity was one center of political aggregation. Eldredge distinguishes incorporation through conquest from submission for survival and the attraction of followers to protective leaders. These differences prevent treating every newcomer as enslaved or every new community as a conquering force.\n\nRaiding and the frontier demand for cattle and captive labor continued into the 1830s. The approximate end of this case in 1840 does not imply that violence or dispossession ended then. The sources describe particular places and changing groups, not a single empty landscape or a complete chain of migration that can be traced across a map.\n\nThe later telling of this history also had consequences. Accounts that made Shaka’s Zulu kingdom the sole starting point of a wave of destruction helped support claims that settlers had entered empty land. Cobbing challenged that explanation by emphasizing colonial intervention. Carolyn Hamilton, in turn, warned against replacing it with a story in which Europeans determined everything and Africans had no political choices or historical voices of their own. Acknowledging that debate must coexist with the evidence of real warfare, displacement and captivity.", "contested": "Historians disagree about the causes and chronology of particular movements, the identities attached to labels such as “Mantatees,” and the intentions of participants at Dithakong. Cobbing’s allegations of planned missionary slave raiding are disputed, not adopted as settled fact. The sources’ environmental explanations also remain interpretations. No whole-case death or displacement total, affected-community share, or precise sequence of routes is established here. The original archival and oral-history records cited by these scholars have not been independently re-examined for this account.", "note": "The comparison profile still displays 0 for imported unfree labor. The sources used here nevertheless document captured women and children entering involuntary work in the Cape and service among Griqua. Transfers out to the Cape do not by themselves establish imported labor within this Highveld case. The inherited score and the receiving circumstances, including service among Griqua, need separate scientific review; 0 must not be read as absence of captivity or coerced work in this history.", "placeGloss": "The Highveld and Caledon valley provide regional context; Kuruman and Dithakong are settings discussed in the sources. These names do not specify the origins and destinations of every displaced community.", "geometryExplanation": "Regional labels provide context only. Exact event endpoints, refuge sites, routes and territorial footprints are not established for this whole case and are not drawn.", "sources": [ "v7_highveld_cobbing_1988", "v7_highveld_eldredge_1991", "v7_highveld_hamilton_1991" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "prospective-crown-and-royal-navy-liberated-african-depot-on-st-helena-1840-1868", "name": "Crown and Royal Navy slave-trade interception and Liberated African depot system on St Helena, 1840–1868", "region": "Atlantic Islands", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1840–1868 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1840, "end": 1868, "yearLabel": "1840–1868 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "African men, women and children removed from intercepted slave ships and landed on St Helena, including depot residents, those who died, and survivors later settled locally or sent onward." ], "settlers": [ "British Crown and colonial authorities, the Royal Navy, St Helena’s Vice-Admiralty court, and depot, medical and administrative staff directing reception and survivors’ disposition." ], "evidence": "Directly consulted historical and archaeological publications establish naval landing, formal liberation, depot custody and treatment, a specific episode of compulsory public work, and varied local and onward survivor pathways. Precise routes, legal terms for every cohort and a whole-event harm total remain unresolved.", "story": "From 1840, the Royal Navy brought Africans removed from intercepted slave ships to St Helena, a remote island in the South Atlantic. The island’s Vice-Admiralty court adjudicated captured vessels and formally liberated their captives. This system suppressed slave trading while placing the people brought ashore under a new form of colonial custody. Its 1840–1868 history is distinct from St Helena’s earlier enslaved-labor colony, which this atlas treats separately through 1839.\n\nReception depots in Lemon Valley and Rupert’s Valley served as places of confinement, medical treatment and quarantine, administered from Jamestown. Many people arrived after appalling conditions aboard slave ships. Some died, and institutional graveyards were established in Rupert’s Valley. Archaeological excavation has recovered remains from part of one graveyard; neither that sample nor an estimated burial population supplies a death total for this entire event. Lemon Valley ceased operating as a depot after 1843, while Rupert’s Valley continued as a depot into the late 1860s.\n\nCourt liberation did not give survivors unrestricted control over their lives. When quarantine was lifted in February 1841, colonial officials assigned the Julia cohort’s able-bodied men and older boys to government work. The largest group was set to road work on Side Path, under the Engineer’s Department, in an exposed location without shade. This documented early episode shows compulsory labor after liberation; it does not establish identical work assignments or legal terms for every person landed over the following decades.\n\nColonial decisions also shaped departure from the island. Domingues da Silva and colleagues describe the compulsory assignment of newly arrived Africans to Caribbean colonies from 1842, including departures from St Helena. The offer of a free return passage associated with some Sierra Leone migration arrangements was not available to St Helena’s recaptives. Their study also records an onward stream to the Cape of Good Hope. These movements involved distinct destinations and arrangements; a single contract term or degree of choice cannot be assigned to all survivors from the evidence read here.\n\nA small minority became permanent island residents, mainly from the arrivals of 1840–1843. Pearson describes people returning to family or comrades in Lemon Valley after unsuccessful employment or apprenticeship. After 1851, almost no new arrivals stayed, apart from people regarded as too sick, disabled or old to undertake the onward journey; those people were kept separately in the depot or the island’s asylum. These differences matter: settlement, family connections and attempts to reshape daily life coexisted with confinement and official control.\n\nThe last slave-carrying arrival identified by the 2014 study was the Haydee in 1863. The final Vice-Admiralty judgment came on 6 July 1868 and concerned an empty captured vessel. The latter marks the end of the island’s active suppression role and this case’s endpoint, not another arrival of Africans. In 1872 the Rupert’s Valley hospital was briefly reused for sick sailors from the Swedish merchant ship Norrkoping. That later use does not extend this depot event to 1872.", "contested": "The evidence read here does not establish one set of apprenticeship terms or one degree of choice for every survivor. Reported arrivals, survivor movements, estimated burials and excavated remains concern different populations and dates. A reported mortality fraction for arrivals from 9 June 1840 to 27 January 1844 is a separate, bounded impact lead; it is not a whole-event count or an exact number of deaths. Pearson’s 2016 evidence is limited to the publisher’s exposed chapter openings, and the underlying court and colonial records were not independently inspected. The 2014 study partly draws on earlier Pearson research, so the accounts are not wholly independent.", "note": "The full comparison profile is preserved, including its low-coverage indicators and unknown imported-unfree-labor applicability. Specific evidence of forced work does not by itself settle the share or applicability of imported labor across this complete event. The people brought ashore are the affected population; formal liberation does not erase subsequent coercion, and colonial control does not make all survivors’ experiences identical.", "placeGloss": "St Helena is the receiving island. Lemon Valley and Rupert’s Valley are documented depot locations, with administration in Jamestown. Side Path is the named setting of the February 1841 road-work episode; none is adopted here as an exact route or event footprint.", "geometryExplanation": "St Helena’s island outline and the labels for Lemon Valley, Rupert’s Valley and Jamestown provide geographic orientation. The valleys held reception depots, administered from Jamestown. The labels do not locate exact landings, depot boundaries or graves, and no maritime journey is traced. The island outline is a modern, generalized coastline, not an 1840–1868 event footprint.", "sources": [ "v7_sthelena_depots_bennett_2023", "v7_sthelena_pearson_2012", "v7_sthelena_pearson_2016", "v7_sthelena_domingues_da_silva_etal_2014" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "modern-australia-stolen-generations", "name": "Australian Stolen Generations child removals", "region": "Australia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "c. 1910–1970", "periods": [ { "start": 1910, "end": 1970, "yearLabel": "c. 1910–1970", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children removed from families and communities" ], "settlers": [ "Government and mission authorities, child-welfare institutions and receiving households; this child-removal case does not describe the children as colonizing settlers." ], "evidence": "The official 1997 inquiry documents removal laws, receiving placements and family resistance through testimony, government submissions and historical research. Jurisdiction-specific examples do not establish identical practice across Australia.", "story": "Across Australia, governments and missions removed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families and communities and placed them in institutions or other households. This case covers approximately 1910–1970. Those dates frame a long-running system, not one national law or a simultaneous beginning and end. The 1997 Bringing Them Home inquiry describes changing policies intended to separate children from Indigenous family life and absorb them into non-Indigenous society.\n\nIn New South Wales, a 1915 amendment allowed the Protection Board to remove children without first proving neglect in court. Girls sent to Cootamundra were subsequently placed in domestic service. The 1940 legislation changed the removal process to require a Children’s Court finding under child-welfare law, but Aboriginal wards remained under a separate system of control. From 1954 to 1968, ACT removals operated under Commonwealth legislation while children were placed in New South Wales institutions or foster care.\n\nWestern Australia followed a different legal timetable. Government settlements separated children from their families in dormitories, and officials promoted training followed by domestic or stock work. The inquiry records both that policy and people’s experiences of constrained placements. In 1954 the Commissioner’s removal power was revoked, while legal guardianship over Aboriginal children other than State wards continued until 1963. Neither change meant that removals under child-welfare legislation stopped.\n\nDestinations also changed. The inquiry describes increasing placements with non-Indigenous foster families in the 1950s and 1960s. Its New South Wales account documents pressure on mothers to agree to adoption and failures to establish that they understood its permanence. Institutional placement, foster care, adoption and service were different experiences; they should not be treated as a single journey or assumed to affect every child identically.\n\nFamilies resisted. The inquiry records New South Wales parents leaving stations to evade removal into domestic employment, and Aboriginal political organizations campaigning against removals. Separation could disrupt family relationships and connections to Country and culture; documents authorizing it are evidence of the machinery of coercion, not a measure of how much suffering occurred. This account establishes no whole-case death or displacement count.", "contested": "This is the inquiry’s retrospective reconstruction; the original submissions, individual case files and legislation it cites have not been independently re-examined here. The examples emphasize New South Wales/ACT and Western Australia and do not represent every jurisdiction or every Torres Strait Islander experience. The approximate 1910–1970 frame is not a claim that removals began or ended everywhere in those years. No quantitative impact record is adopted in this draft. The inquiry’s broad national estimate of the proportion of Indigenous children removed remains a separate, scoped assessment lead; it is not a death rate or a measure of the share of land or the whole Indigenous population displaced. No child-level itinerary is established.", "note": "The comparison profile retains its inherited 0 for imported unfree labor. Bringing Them Home nevertheless documents training institutions and placements in domestic and stock work. Whether those receiving arrangements belong in this labor measure remains a separate, unresolved scientific question. The displayed 0 must not be read as saying that coerced work was absent.", "placeGloss": "Australia is the national frame. New South Wales, the ACT and Western Australia are jurisdictional examples; Cootamundra illustrates a receiving institution, not a mapped route for all children.", "geometryExplanation": "Event origins, destinations and routes remain unknown in this draft. Named institutions and jurisdictions are textual evidence, not adopted coordinates or a historical footprint.", "sources": [ "v7_stolen_generations_bth_national_1997", "v7_stolen_generations_bth_nsw_act_1997", "v7_stolen_generations_bth_wa_1997" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "prospective-balkan-greek-kukush-bulgarian-expulsion-1913", "name": "Greek destruction and Bulgarian exodus from Kukush to the Bulgarian frontier", "region": "Europe", "fit": "strong", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1913 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1913, "end": 1913, "yearLabel": "1913 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Bulgarian civilians of Kukush and Bulgarian villages along the Greek northward line of advance." ], "settlers": [ "Greek army, including cavalry and infantry detachments, with bashi-bazouk participation under Greek troop protection in some localities." ], "evidence": "The 1914 commission report records observed destruction, attributed eyewitness accounts and refugee testimony. Its broader interpretations are identified as such; command structure, complete harm totals and exact routes remain unresolved.", "story": "On 4 July 1913, during the Second Balkan War, the Greek army entered Kukush after defeating the Bulgarian defenders. The Carnegie International Commission’s subsequent investigation distinguished the fighting from what followed. It reported that bombardment had not caused a general fire before the army entered; a commission member later found the town in ruins. The commission concluded that the destruction was deliberate.\n\nThe report attributed the burning to Greek soldiers, drawing on European eyewitness accounts of soldiers entering houses, evicting remaining occupants, looting and then setting buildings alight. Most inhabitants had already fled. Others sought shelter in the Catholic orphanage. The commission also recorded reports of civilian killings and sexual violence. Its later account described the orphanage refugees as still forbidden to leave in September, after peace had been concluded. Escape from the burning town and confinement within it were different civilian experiences.\n\nDestruction extended to Bulgarian villages along the Greek northward advance. The commission described cavalry moving from village to village and, in some localities, irregular fighters participating under Greek troop protection. It also recorded an exception: Todoraki was pillaged but not burned. The investigators explicitly said they could not determine whether a general order governed the village burnings. Their conclusion that the campaign sought to remove the Bulgarian population was an interpretation of the pattern of destruction and displacement, not a recovered universal command.\n\nThe burning settlements and reports of attacks drove villagers toward Bulgaria. The commission described families separated during flight, abandoned crops and seized livestock, and journeys through mountain country. In its broader account of Macedonian refugees in Bulgaria, it stressed that most refugees had not personally encountered Greek troops: many fled after hearing reports or seeing villages burn. The fear was nevertheless reinforced by testimony from people who had direct contact with soldiers. In Appendix C, a woman from Bogoroditsa described leaving one child behind while escaping with another; other witnesses described panic and family separation. These accounts convey experiences of flight, not a single itinerary shared by everyone.\n\nThe report’s evidence has limits. Its account combines a commissioner’s observation of the ruined town, testimony gathered from refugees and other witnesses, and the commission’s own judgments. Its witnesses did not observe every death or every destroyed settlement, and the commission acknowledged that it had not obtained an official Greek answer to its charges. This case follows the Bulgarian civilians driven from Kukush and villages along that advance. The separate movements from Strumnitsa, the Muslim exodus, incoming Greek or Patriarchist settlers, and later population exchanges are not added to this affected population.", "contested": "The commission’s attribution is based on the evidence it gathered and assessed, not an independently reconstructed account from all belligerents. It did not establish a universal destruction order or a common end day for all villages. Witnesses reported some fires and flight before the 4 July entry into Kukush; that entry date is not imposed as the start of every local episode. The report’s casualty lists, estimates of burned homes and wider refugee totals concern different or incompletely observed populations. No comprehensive death count, displacement count or household denominator is adopted here.", "note": "The full comparison profile is preserved, including partial and insufficient evidence indicators. These inherited comparisons are not counts of people, nor does this source reading independently certify every score. The authorities and armed units listed as agents are the perpetrators identified by the report; the Bulgarian civilians who fled are the affected population.", "placeGloss": "Kukush is the report’s name for the town also identified there as Kilkish. The source describes flight toward Bulgaria and destruction along the northward advance. Named villages and reported journeys do not establish one precise route or a complete historical footprint.", "geometryExplanation": "The receiving direction and named settlements are documented, but exact event boundaries, crossing points and a shared itinerary are not established. No precise route or event footprint is drawn.", "sources": [ "v7_kukush1913_carnegie_1914" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "prospective-cocos-keeling-estate-bound-labor", "name": "Cocos (Keeling) estate settlement and controlled labor", "region": "Indian Ocean", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "local", "dates": "From 1827; end unresolved", "periods": [ { "start": 1827, "end": 1827, "yearLabel": "From 1827 — end unresolved", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Recruited Malay plantation workers and later generations of the Cocos-Malay community; descendants are not treated as additional arrivals." ], "settlers": [ "The Clunies-Ross family and estate, within changing British and Australian territorial administration." ], "evidence": "Parks Australia’s institutional history and bounded passages from parliamentary and UN reports describe recruitment, estate dependence, continued Home Island administration and intended reforms. They do not establish every worker’s conditions or a common endpoint.", "story": "John Clunies-Ross established a coconut settlement on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in 1827, recruiting Malay workers. Parks Australia’s history records wages paid in Cocos rupees that could be spent only at the family’s store. After the rival settler Alexander Hare left in 1831, the Clunies-Ross family held sole control. The estate combined employment, access to goods and authority over the place where workers and their families lived.\n\nThe community developed across generations. People recruited to the plantations and their descendants are not the same arrival cohort. This account concerns the Cocos estate system, especially Home Island, rather than Christmas Island’s separate phosphate industry. It does not establish how every worker was recruited or that everyone experienced identical restrictions.\n\nBritain annexed Cocos in 1857; the islands became an Australian territory in 1955. A later Australian parliamentary report records little immediate change to Clunies-Ross administration on Home Island after the latter transfer. It describes a gap between Commonwealth law extending to the island and its continuing treatment in practice as private property.\n\nA UN report published in 1977 records intended measures to replace token money with Australian currency, progressively align pay and employment conditions with Australian practice and International Labour Organization conventions, and introduce provisions allowing community members freedom of movement. These were stated reforms. The passage identifies conditions targeted for change; it does not demonstrate when every proposal became an enforceable or effective right.\n\nLater changes are separately dated in the Parks Australia account: Australia purchased most estate land in 1978, the coconut-fibre industry closed in 1980, and the Cocos-Malay population voted for integration with Australia in a UN-supervised act of self-determination in 1984. Those milestones do not establish a single year when all labor, currency, land and movement controls ended. This case therefore begins in 1827 but leaves its terminal date unresolved.", "contested": "The Parks Australia page is an institutional summary. The parliamentary and UN evidence was accessible as search-indexed passages from the official reports, not inspected PDF page images or complete reports. The parliamentary passage is retrospective; the UN passage reports intended reforms. Underlying employment contracts, testimony and records of implementation were not examined. Complete recruitment streams, worker numbers, movement restrictions and enforcement practices across the whole period remain unresolved. No whole-case death or displacement total, population share or individual itinerary is established.", "note": "Landholding, company currency and administrative rules describe how control operated; the quantity of surviving paperwork does not measure the harm experienced. Several comparison traits have insufficient evidence and must remain visibly uncertain. The single timeline position marks the documented 1827 start, not an event that ended that year.", "placeGloss": "Cocos (Keeling), especially Home Island and the southern-atoll estate, is the setting. Christmas Island’s phosphate operation is a separate case; named places here are not a mapped route.", "geometryExplanation": "Event origins, destinations and routes remain unknown. No settlement outline or individual journey is established by this account.", "sources": [ "v7_cocos_parks_history", "v7_cocos_parliament_1991", "v7_cocos_un_a10023_vol3" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "prospective-channel-islands-nazi-deportations-1940-1945", "name": "Nazi arrests and deportations of Jersey residents to mainland prisons and camps, 1942–1945", "region": "Western Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1942–1945", "periods": [ { "start": 1942, "end": 1945, "yearLabel": "1942–1945", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Jersey residents deported under the retaliatory internment order, and separately punished resistance helpers and prohibited-news disseminators" ], "settlers": [ "German occupation, police, prison and camp authorities; Hitler issued the retaliatory order. Jersey authorities protested it. Deportees are not described as incoming colonizing settlers." ], "evidence": "Jersey Heritage identifies implemented deportations, differentiated internment destinations and individual punitive cases. Its retrospective account is not a complete deportee roster or an independently inspected set of original orders.", "story": "Between 1942 and 1945, German authorities removed Jersey residents to mainland internment camps, prisons and concentration camps. This case distinguishes a mass retaliatory order from separate punitive arrests. It excludes the voluntary evacuation to Britain in 1940 and makes no claim to cover deportations from every Channel Island.\n\nJersey Heritage attributes the September 1942 internment order to Hitler and describes it as retaliation for British internment of German citizens in Persia in 1941. It targeted people not born in Jersey and their families. The account reports that about 1,200 people were eventually deported under this order despite protests by Jersey authorities. Families went to Wurzach; single men went to Laufen. This figure describes that retaliatory cohort, not everyone deported from Jersey.\n\nPunitive removals followed different circumstances. In 1944, Louisa Gould, Ivy Forster and Harold Le Druillenec were arrested after helping hide an escaped forced worker. Jersey Heritage reports that Gould and Le Druillenec were sent to concentration camps: Gould was killed at Ravensbrück, while Le Druillenec survived Bergen-Belsen. The account does not say that all three siblings shared those destinations.\n\nThe source also describes punishments for retaining wireless sets or circulating prohibited news after the June 1942 ban. Canon Clifford Cohu and fellow BBC-news disseminators died in German prisons and camps. These named outcomes establish lethal harm in particular cases; they do not provide a complete death total or mortality rate for the deported population.\n\nThe families and single men sent under the retaliatory order were liberated in April–May 1945 and repatriated, according to Jersey Heritage. That return is not a claim that every punitive deportee survived. The episode combined compulsory removal from home with confinement abroad; eventual repatriation did not undo the deaths or separation already experienced.", "contested": "The cited institutional history does not provide a comprehensive arrest chronology, destination for every person, or a complete account of mainland work conditions. Its approximately 1,200 deportees belong only to the retaliatory internment order. Named deaths, memorial names and deaths among forced workers brought into Jersey are not a whole-event harm tally. The 1945 return statement concerns the interned families and single men; it does not erase the different outcomes of punitive deportees.", "note": "Destination labor status is unknown. The source documents deportation to mainland custody but does not establish the deportees’ work conditions. Forced workers brought into Jersey were a separate population. The inherited profile’s structural not-applicable label must not be read as evidence that work in mainland custody was absent or voluntary.", "placeGloss": "Jersey is the origin island. Wurzach and Laufen are the reported destinations of the retaliatory groups; Ravensbrück and Bergen-Belsen identify named punitive cases, not a common itinerary.", "geometryExplanation": "Event origins, destinations and routes remain unplotted. Named places are textual evidence; no camp coordinate, island footprint or shared deportation route is adopted.", "sources": [ "v7_jersey_deportations_jerseyheritage" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "prospective-lithuania-operation-vesna-1948", "name": "Operation Vesna household deportation from Lithuania", "region": "Europe / Russia and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "22–23 May 1948; initial transports completed afterward", "periods": [ { "start": 1948, "end": 1948, "yearLabel": "22–23 May 1948; initial transports continued", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Lithuanian households selected for Operation Vesna, including children; official categories of resistance families, supporters and kulaks are attributed classifications." ], "settlers": [ "USSR and Lithuanian SSR security and party-administrative authorities, troops and transport personnel; deportees are not labeled colonizing settlers." ], "evidence": "The Lithuanian Archives provides operation-specific editorial explanation and document captions; the Commission supplies a broader retrospective assessment. Lists, intended destinations and completed transport receipts are distinguished.", "story": "Operation Vesna removed households from Lithuania on 22–23 May 1948. The Lithuanian Special Archives describes hurried preparation, inadequate room for belongings and property loss. This case includes completion of those initial transports; it excludes earlier deportations, Priboi in 1949, Osen in 1951 and unrelated onward transfers.\n\nThe Commission identifies a Soviet resolution of 21 February 1948 and describes the allocation of responsibilities between central authorities, Lithuanian SSR officials and district security bodies. Lists and formal approval were instruments for selecting and removing families. Its broader account connects the 1948–1951 campaigns to agricultural collectivization as well as suppression of resistance; that does not establish identical motives or circumstances for every household.\n\nThe archive’s caption for a 15 June telegram records the arrival of echelon 97912, sent from Pavenčiai toward Irkutsk. This confirms delivery beyond the roundup dates for that transport, not a common itinerary for everyone. A separate May family-handover caption records an intended destination; intention and completed receipt are different evidence.\n\nThe Commission describes restrictions on leaving deportation locations and regular reporting to authorities. It also documents forced work in the wider deportation system, while acknowledging that its quantitative extent could not be determined. The archive specifically reports many Vesna deportees working under compulsion in forestry and timber enterprises. Neither source establishes that every family member performed the same work.", "contested": "No complete household roster, harmonized operation total, common destination, death count or population share is adopted. General Commission findings span several deportation programs and cannot all be assigned to Vesna. The archive captions mediate original documents; the linked Russian scans have not been independently transcribed. Later liberation, births and movements are outside this initial-transfer unit.", "note": "The inherited comparison profile retains 0 for imported unfree labor. The sources nevertheless document forced work. Whether and how that evidence belongs in this measure requires a separate full-cohort scientific assessment; the displayed 0 must not be read as absence of coerced work.", "placeGloss": "Lithuania is the sending territory. Pavenčiai and Irkutsk identify one documented transport, not a route shared by all deportees.", "geometryExplanation": "Origins, destinations and routes remain unplotted. No train itinerary, settlement footprint or national boundary is adopted as event geometry.", "sources": [ "v7_vesna_archive", "v7_vesna_commission" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown" }, { "id": "prospective-indochina-vietnam-hoa-china-flight", "name": "Northern Hoa flight from Viet Nam to China", "region": "Southeast Asia and the Pacific", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1978–1979", "periods": [ { "start": 1978, "end": 1979, "yearLabel": "1978–1979", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Hoa and other ethnic Chinese residents of northern Viet Nam who fled overland to China" ], "settlers": [ "Vietnamese authorities implementing expropriation and hostile policies; Chinese authorities providing asylum and settlement, assisted by UNHCR. Refugees are not characterized as colonizing settlers." ], "evidence": "UNHCR’s retrospective distinguishes mainly northern refugees going to China from the boat exodus. It describes official pressure, asylum and state-farm settlement, but supplies no complete roster of this land-border branch.", "story": "In 1978–1979, ethnic Chinese residents of northern Viet Nam fled to China amid increasingly hostile official policies and deteriorating relations between the two countries. This case follows the northern overland branch. Hoa who departed by boat belong to the separate maritime exodus; the same departure is not counted in both cases.\n\nUNHCR’s retrospective account describes measures, underway by early 1978, to expropriate private businesses whose owners were predominantly ethnic Chinese. It places these measures alongside growing official hostility toward the Hoa and worsening relations with China. The refugees going to China were mainly from northern Viet Nam, where they had lived for decades; UNHCR describes most as poor fishermen, artisans and peasants. That description does not establish that every departing household owned an expropriated business or left under the same circumstances.\n\nChina offered asylum and subsequently organized settlement on state farms in southern China, with UNHCR assistance. This was a receiving response to flight. The account does not establish a uniform order transferring this whole population across the border, nor does it describe the terms under which individuals entered or worked on the farms. Pressure to leave and direct compulsory transfer are different mechanisms; state-farm placement alone does not establish forced labor.\n\nBy the end of 1979, UNHCR reports, more than 250,000 people from Viet Nam had taken refuge in China. That broader figure is not an independently enumerated total for this northern overland branch and is not used here as a displacement count. Settlement within China is treated as an outcome of the original movement, not a second displacement event.", "contested": "The source does not identify every origin locality, border crossing, receiving farm or household’s reason for leaving. Its total for people from Viet Nam in China is broader than the case’s northern overland cohort. Expropriation of predominantly ethnic-Chinese businesses does not establish that every refugee lost a business. The account is not a comprehensive record of arrival compulsion or destination work conditions.", "note": "Flight under official pressure does not by itself establish a directly ordered transfer. The source’s description of state-farm settlement does not establish forced labor, freedom to refuse placement, or voluntary work. The inherited labor profile must not be read as resolving these missing conditions.", "placeGloss": "Northern Viet Nam and southern China identify broad origin and receiving regions in the source. No particular border crossing, farm or common journey is established here.", "geometryExplanation": "Event origins, destinations and routes remain unplotted. Regional names provide textual orientation only; no border crossing, farm location, flight corridor or settlement footprint is adopted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_hoa_china_unhcr_2000" ] }, { "id": "modern-sri-lanka-northern-muslim-expulsion", "name": "LTTE expulsion of Muslims from northern Sri Lanka", "region": "South Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1990", "periods": [ { "start": 1990, "end": 1990, "yearLabel": "1990; expulsion in October", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Muslim residents expelled from northern Sri Lankan districts" ], "settlers": [ "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the expelling organization; no incoming settler cohort is established here" ], "evidence": "HRW’s institutional report supplies the expulsion and receiving-place account; it is not a household register.", "story": "In October 1990, the LTTE ordered Muslim communities out of northern Sri Lanka. Human Rights Watch identifies Mannar, Mullaitivu, Kilinochchi and Jaffna: village leaders were told that residents had days, sometimes hours, to leave under threat of violence.\n\nThe report describes some people reaching temporary camps in Puttalam by fishing boat; others travelled as far as Colombo. These are reported branches, not a common itinerary. Its later discussion describes continued camp residence. The case remains the 1990 northern expulsion, rather than the wider civil war.\n\nEastern massacres supplied the threat’s immediate context but are excluded from this event’s death toll. Neither the report’s partial coastal movement estimate nor its later displaced-population stock is adopted as an operation-wide count.", "contested": "The account does not establish a complete operation roster, uniform notice period, universal route or event-specific mortality total.", "note": "Northern expulsions, eastern massacres and later displacement stocks are kept separate. An unassessed death total is not a claim that nobody died.", "placeGloss": "Northern districts and Puttalam/Colombo provide textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "No event footprint, embarkation point, camp coordinate or route is adopted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_sri_lanka_northern_muslims_hrw_1995" ] }, { "id": "modern-finnish-karelia-evacuation", "name": "Karelian evacuation, return and renewed displacement", "region": "Northern Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1939–1944", "periods": [ { "start": 1939, "end": 1944, "yearLabel": "1939–1944", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Karelian residents evacuated from territories ceded by Finland to the Soviet Union" ], "settlers": [ "Soviet military and territorial pressure; Finnish evacuation and resettlement authorities. Evacuees are not thereby characterized as colonizing settlers." ], "evidence": "The Heritage Agency account distinguishes wartime evacuation, interim return and renewed departure.", "story": "War displaced Karelian residents from territory Finland ceded to the Soviet Union. Evacuation during the Winter War was followed by returns beginning in autumn 1941. A Soviet offensive brought renewed displacement westward in 1944; the September armistice required evacuation of ceded Karelia again.\n\nElina Karila’s account for the Finnish Heritage Agency follows these disruptions through Pekka Kyytinen’s photographs. Its Kurkijoki household scene illustrates departure locally, not an itinerary or deadline shared by every evacuee.\n\nResettlement took different forms. Some evacuees entered urban and industrial life; farming families could pass through several temporary homes. The 1945 Land Acquisition Act supported the establishment of farms, followed by clearance and building. These later consequences explain the outcome without extending this case’s 1939–1944 evacuation window.", "contested": "The article concerns Karelia; it does not document every other ceded Finnish territory. Its photographs are local examples, not complete movement records.", "note": "The source does not establish a blanket legal prohibition on return after 1944. No operation-wide harm count or population share is adopted. The inherited comparison profile is preserved rather than re-estimated from this photo essay.", "placeGloss": "Ceded Karelia is the documented origin; receiving locations within Finland varied.", "geometryExplanation": "Origins, destinations and routes remain unplotted. No household photograph is generalized into an event route or territorial footprint.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_karelia_karila_2015" ] }, { "id": "modern-ethiopia-expulsion-eritrean-designated-civilians-1998-2000", "name": "Ethiopian expulsion of Eritrean-designated civilians", "region": "Horn of Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1998–2000", "periods": [ { "start": 1998, "end": 2000, "yearLabel": "12 June 1998–12 December 2000", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Civilians whom Ethiopian authorities designated Eritrean or of Eritrean origin, including mixed families" ], "settlers": [ "Ethiopian government, police, security services and local authorities; no incoming settler cohort established" ], "evidence": "Human Rights Watch’s investigation combines interviews, official statements and humanitarian reporting; citizenship and individual property claims remain attributed.", "story": "Ethiopian authorities began arrests and expulsions on 12 June 1998 during the war with Eritrea. Human Rights Watch reports that a campaign initially aimed at prominent business and community figures broadened to ordinary residents designated Eritrean or of Eritrean origin. The government claimed that registration for Eritrea’s 1993 independence referendum established Eritrean citizenship; HRW disputes the resulting deprivation of Ethiopian nationality and describes people unable to challenge their classification meaningfully.\n\nHRW documents arrest, detention, confiscation of identity papers, frozen assets and property sales under duress. Urban deportees were taken in guarded bus convoys, usually toward Eritrea, and made to cross the border on foot. Rural residents also faced evacuation orders and loss of belongings. These accounts do not establish a single itinerary for everyone.\n\nFamily separation produced further departures. HRW rejects the government’s description of later family-reunification programs as purely voluntary in a climate of harassment and discrimination. Leaving under that pressure remains distinct from being arrested and directly transferred; both belong to this campaign’s history.\n\nThis case ends at the peace agreement of 12 December 2000. Eritrea’s reciprocal campaign, prisoners of war and subsequent expulsions in 2001–2002 are separate.", "contested": "Nationality and ownership claims are not adjudicated here. The source’s broad estimate is not an independently deduplicated count matching every branch of this bounded campaign.", "note": "Direct deportation and pressured family departure are different forms of coercion. Death and displacement totals remain unassessed here; an unknown total does not mean no harm occurred.", "placeGloss": "Ethiopia and Eritrea provide broad textual orientation; the account also records departures through other countries.", "geometryExplanation": "No event footprint, detention-site coordinate, border point or route is adopted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_ethiopia_eritrean_designated_expulsion_hrw_2003" ] }, { "id": "modern-eritrea-expulsion-ethiopian-designated-civilians-1998-2000", "name": "Eritrean internment and expulsion of Ethiopian residents", "region": "Horn of Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1998–2000", "periods": [ { "start": 1998, "end": 2000, "yearLabel": "1998–2000", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Ethiopian citizens and long-term Ethiopian residents in Eritrea, including Tigrayan workers, civilian internees, women and children" ], "settlers": [ "Eritrean government, security forces, police and internment authorities; private attackers in documented incidents. These actors are not thereby described as incoming settlers." ], "evidence": "Human Rights Watch distinguishes early pressured departures, internment and specific confirmed forced expulsions.", "story": "During the Ethiopia–Eritrea war, Ethiopian residents of Eritrea faced a changing mixture of economic hardship, hostility, confinement and forced departure. Eritrea initially promised that they could remain safely or return voluntarily. Human Rights Watch describes early departures prompted by fear and lost livelihoods, as well as people initially prevented from leaving by exit requirements. An organized passage was therefore not, by itself, evidence of either free choice or forcible expulsion.\n\nThe report records attacks on Ethiopian residents and increasing internment. HRW obtained independent corroboration of detention at Aweshait in 1999, while noting that some former internees were later left destitute inside Eritrea. Internment did not always end in cross-border removal. Accounts conveyed through press reporting and Ethiopian-government testimony also described beatings and confiscated homes or businesses; these are reported experiences, not an inventory of every household’s losses.\n\nForced expulsions intensified after the fighting of May–June 2000. According to HRW, the ICRC confirmed July and August removals, including an August transfer from an internment camp to a location near the front line, followed by a long walk exposed to hunger, weather and mines. HRW reports that deportees died from the harsh conditions during that August expulsion. The report also relays a July press account of Ethiopian women, mostly domestic workers, detained and expelled to Djibouti. These documented branches do not establish one itinerary for everyone.\n\nThis case covers departures under Eritrean authority from June 1998 through the peace agreement of 12 December 2000. Ethiopia’s opposite-direction campaign is a separate case. The ICRC monitored and facilitated transfers as a humanitarian organization; it was not the authority carrying out the persecution.", "contested": "Government allegations, individual testimony, press accounts and ICRC confirmations have different evidentiary bases. Voluntary return, pressured departure and direct expulsion cannot be fully separated into non-overlapping totals.", "note": "No combined expulsion total or population share is adopted. Civilian internment is not automatically a cross-border removal. Prisoners of war and movements after 12 December 2000 are excluded. The comparison profile retains its existing uncertainty, including insufficient evidence about lasting outcomes and separation from home.", "placeGloss": "Departures from Eritrea toward Ethiopia, with a documented branch to Djibouti; individual destinations varied.", "geometryExplanation": "The broad region provides orientation. Individual departure points, border crossings and receiving places remain unplotted; no common route or territorial footprint is inferred.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_eritrea_expulsions_hrw_2003" ] }, { "id": "prospective-balkan-greek-strumnitsa-muslim-exodus-1913", "name": "Forced Muslim exodus from Strumnitsa", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "August 1913", "periods": [ { "start": 1913, "end": 1913, "yearLabel": "August 1913", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Muslim inhabitants of Strumnitsa town and nearby villages removed under the Greek military order" ], "settlers": [ "Greek military authorities carrying out the expulsion; no incoming settler cohort is established for this case" ], "evidence": "The Carnegie commission’s investigation combines refugee interviews, depositions, other testimony and its own observation near Salonica.", "story": "In August 1913, Greek military authorities ordered Muslim inhabitants of Strumnitsa and neighboring villages to leave for Greek territory. The Carnegie International Commission’s report says the order was backed by a threat to burn their homes. Its investigators interviewed refugees near Salonica and assembled depositions and other testimony; their account of the order and its enforcement was not a direct observation of every removal.\n\nThe commission concluded that the Muslim population yielded to force: most left in obedience to the order, while some who tried to remain were forcibly evicted. A Muslim notable from Strumnitsa described a Greek patrol refusing his offer of money to spare his house. Refugees from nearby villages told the investigators that some had seen their villages burning, while others had heard of the destruction after leaving. The report’s main account describes the systematic burning of empty Muslim and Greek quarters during the withdrawal.\n\nThe same report distinguishes the Greek or Patriarchist branch. Although pressure and promises shaped that movement, the commission judged it on the whole voluntary. Those arrivals, including people taken to Kukush, are not included in this Muslim expulsion case. Nor are the earlier violence of 1912, the separate Bulgarian flight from Kukush, or later onward migration.\n\nThe investigators saw Muslim refugees camped near Salonica with uncertain prospects for shelter and land. That wider refugee population is not a count of people expelled from Strumnitsa. The report records uprooting and loss, but does not establish this bounded group’s full death toll, complete receiving roster or eventual resettlement.", "contested": "The report distinguishes what investigators observed from testimony and interpretation. Its appendix and main narrative disagree on the withdrawal date; no exact final day or universal itinerary is adopted.", "note": "Muslim compulsion is kept separate from the Greek/Patriarchist movement and the broader Salonica refugee population. Death and displacement totals remain unassessed; this does not mean no harm occurred.", "placeGloss": "Strumnitsa and the Salonica area provide textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "No town footprint, village boundary, route or refugee-camp coordinate is adopted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_strumnitsa_muslim_exodus_carnegie_1914" ] }, { "id": "medieval-mongol-bamiyan-retaliatory-destruction", "name": "Mongol retaliatory destruction of Bamiyan", "region": "Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "local", "dates": "1221–1222", "periods": [ { "start": 1221, "end": 1222, "yearLabel": "1221–1222", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Residents of the besieged fortified city of Bamiyan" ], "settlers": [ "Chinggis Khan and Mongol forces carrying out the siege and retaliation; no incoming settler population is established for this event." ], "evidence": "Juvaini narrates the retaliatory killing and prohibition of habitation; Jackson corroborates the episode and reports the town’s later ruined condition.", "story": "During the Mongol siege of Bamiyan, a projectile from the town killed Chinggis Khan’s favoured grandson, a son of Chaghatai. Juvaini describes resistance by the inhabitants and fighting with arrows and siege engines. His account dates the capture and retaliation to 618 in the Islamic calendar, corresponding to 1221–1222.\n\nAfter the town fell, Juvaini says that Chinggis Khan ordered every living creature killed, no prisoners taken and no future habitation permitted. This was an account of deliberate destruction and killing, not a policy of taking the inhabitants elsewhere as captives. The sweeping wording belongs to the chronicler: it does not establish how many people died or the fate of every person in the surrounding valley.\n\nHistorian Peter Jackson places Bamiyan among the cities subjected to especially severe retaliation after the death of an imperial prince or commander. He identifies the grandson as Möetügen, corroborates the capture and retaliatory order, and reports that the town was still in ruins in Hamd-Allah Mustawfi’s day. This later report concerns the ruined town; it does not establish uninterrupted depopulation of the entire Bamiyan valley or conditions there today.", "contested": "The sources support severe retaliatory destruction, but their universal wording is not a census. Exact population, casualty totals, the fate of residents beyond the fortified city and its precise footprint remain unresolved.", "note": "This case concerns the besieged fortified city, not every settlement in the wider Bamiyan valley. No death count, displacement count or population share is established here. The comparison profile is preserved; the source reading does not independently verify its numerical scores.", "placeGloss": "Bamiyan in present-day Afghanistan; the affected fortified-city site is not mapped here.", "geometryExplanation": "The broad region provides orientation. The sources used here do not establish a mapped city boundary, affected valley-wide area or movement route.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_bamiyan_juvaini_132_133", "v7_bamiyan_jackson_158" ] }, { "id": "prospective-estonia-german-nationality-deportation-1945", "name": "Deportation of German-origin residents from Estonia", "region": "Europe / Russia and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "15 August 1945", "periods": [ { "start": 1945, "end": 1945, "yearLabel": "15 August 1945", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "People of German origin removed from Estonia in the 15 August 1945 action" ], "settlers": [ "Soviet authorities carrying out the deportation; no incoming settler cohort is established for this case" ], "evidence": "The Estonian Commission’s conclusions identify the date, affected group, reported minimum and broad destination, but not individual receiving locations.", "story": "On 15 August 1945, Soviet authorities rounded up people of German origin in Estonia and deported them to remote places in the Soviet interior. The Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity reports that at least 439 people, of all ages, were removed in this action.\n\nThe Commission describes a population with deep roots in Estonia. Some had stayed despite Nazi orders to leave for Germany in 1939–1940 and 1941; others had been taken to Germany and subsequently returned. It says that, in almost all cases, the deportees and their ancestors had lived in Estonia for generations or centuries, held Estonian citizenship and had intermarried with ethnic Estonians.\n\nThe Commission characterizes the deportation as collective punishment based on national origin. It states that the deportees’ wartime conduct was not investigated. That is the Commission’s finding, rather than a claim that individual case files have been independently examined here.\n\nThis case concerns that August 1945 action alone. The German-resident deportation from Lithuania, Estonia’s March 1949 deportations and the April 1951 removal of Jehovah’s Witnesses and their families are separate events. Their receiving locations and return histories cannot fill the gaps in this cohort’s story.", "contested": "The cited conclusion does not identify the operation order, full implementing chain, transport route, property-disposition rule or duration of exile for this cohort.", "note": "Labor status unknown: the cited source does not establish work assignments or labor conditions for this German-origin cohort. The profile’s imported-labor category does not mean that free conditions have been established. The reported minimum of 439 is not a separately validated impact measure; death and displacement totals remain unassessed here.", "placeGloss": "Estonia and the Soviet interior provide textual orientation only; precise receiving locations are not established.", "geometryExplanation": "No route, settlement coordinate, deportation boundary or historical footprint is adopted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_estonia_german_deportation_1945_commission" ] }, { "id": "prospective-lithuania-german-nationality-deportation-1945", "name": "Deportation of German residents from Lithuania", "region": "Europe / Russia and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1945", "periods": [ { "start": 1945, "end": 1945, "yearLabel": "1945", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "German residents of Lithuania deported in the 1945 nationality-based action" ], "settlers": [ "Soviet authorities directing and carrying out the deportation; no incoming settler cohort is established for this case" ], "evidence": "The Lithuanian International Commission identifies a distinct 1945 German-resident deportation and reports its broad destinations and affected count.", "story": "In 1945, Soviet authorities deported German residents of Lithuania to Siberia and Kazakhstan under general Soviet directives targeting Germans. Lithuania’s International Commission on the crimes of the Nazi and Soviet occupation regimes identifies this as a nationality-based deportation, distinct from the deportations associated with resistance to Soviet rule.\n\nThe Commission reports that 1,048 people were deported in this German-resident branch. It states that they were not included in the lists of Lithuanian deportees. That distinction matters: counts and experiences reported for the wider Lithuanian deportations cannot simply be added to, or assigned to, this group.\n\nForced removal from Lithuania is established, but the conclusions do not identify this group’s exact transport dates, routes, individual receiving settlements or duration of exile. The same document describes property seizure, compulsory labor and severe mortality among other deportees. It does not establish which of those specific conditions applied to the German-resident group described separately in conclusion 2.\n\nThis case therefore follows the 1945 removal from Lithuania to the broad receiving regions named by the Commission. The separate German-origin deportation from Estonia, resistance-family and later kulak campaigns, and subsequent transfers within the Soviet interior are outside this event.", "contested": "The Commission’s conclusions give limited detail about this particular group. Adjacent accounts of other deportations do not supply its property rules, work assignments, mortality or return history. The reported 1,048 is retained as an attributed source statement; no death total or population share is established.", "note": "Labor status unknown. The report documents compulsory labor for other deportees but does not establish work duties for this German-resident group. This is not evidence that the group was exempt from work. The existing profile is retained; its labor classification should not be read as proof of voluntary conditions.", "placeGloss": "Lithuania to Siberia and Kazakhstan; the source names broad receiving regions, not a single destination.", "geometryExplanation": "No departure locality, receiving settlement, transport route or territorial footprint is plotted. The map provides broad regional orientation only.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_lithuania_german_deportation_commission_2005" ] }, { "id": "prospective-balkan-cisr-mustafa-pasa-jewish-return-exclusion-1913-1914", "name": "Obstruction of Jewish return to Cisr-i Mustafa Paşa", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "local", "dates": "1913–1914", "periods": [ { "start": 1913, "end": 1914, "yearLabel": "1913–1914", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Jewish households whose return to Cisr-i Mustafa Paşa was obstructed or whose renewed departure followed local exclusion" ], "settlers": [ "Local actors obstructing Jewish return; no distinct incoming settler cohort is established for this case" ], "evidence": "Ginio’s scholarly account distinguishes contemporary newspaper reports and communal correspondence from his interpretation of local exclusion.", "story": "In the spring of 1913, Jewish families began trying to return to Cisr-i Mustafa Paşa, now Svilengrad, after fleeing during the previous year’s war. Historian Eyal Ginio reconstructs these attempts from contemporary Jewish newspapers and communal correspondence. Early reports described some families recovering homes or finding rented accommodation, with Bulgarian authorities promising protection.\n\nReturn nevertheless faced local obstruction. Reports cited by Ginio described fires at Jewish homes and communal buildings, hostility toward returning families, and looted houses and shops. A report in La Luz described families remaining in Edirne after news that communal property had been burned. Another contemporary account said that Bulgarian authorities investigated the fires but did not identify the perpetrators. Ginio interprets control of abandoned property as a probable motive; that is an inference, not a confession by named attackers.\n\nCentral policy and local conduct did not simply coincide. Ginio describes Bulgarian political and military leaders accepting the right of the Jewish residents to return and taking or promising protective measures. Those measures did not overcome the reported local hostility or restore the material conditions needed to live in the town. This case therefore concerns local exclusion rather than treating the central protective orders as deportation policy.\n\nReports later in 1913 described renewed departures and reliance on Jewish communal assistance. A March 1914 newspaper account described refugees in Edirne facing hunger and lacking the money needed to travel back and pursue property claims. The account documents severe hardship, but supplies no verified death toll for this bounded episode. The surviving accounts do not establish one final day of displacement or a complete roster of households whose return was defeated.", "contested": "Individual perpetrators are not identified in the cited account. Different reports describe different family groups and stages of displacement; their numbers do not form a single event denominator.", "note": "Initial anticipatory flight in 1912, state-managed population exchanges, separate pressure in Uzun Köprü and later voluntary dispersal are excluded. Death and displacement totals remain unassessed; missing totals do not erase the reported arson, dispossession and hardship.", "placeGloss": "Cisr-i Mustafa Paşa, now Svilengrad, and Edirne are textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "No household location, town footprint, route or receiving site is plotted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_cisr_jewish_return_ginio_2023" ] }, { "id": "ca-soviet-korean-deportation", "name": "Soviet deportation of Koreans from the Far East", "region": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1937", "periods": [ { "start": 1937, "end": 1937, "yearLabel": "1937", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Soviet Koreans collectively removed from the Far East in the 1937 operation" ], "settlers": [ "The Soviet government and NKVD directing compulsory removal and resettlement; the arriving deportees are not thereby identified as voluntary colonizers" ], "evidence": "Pohl documents the two 1937 orders, implemented removals to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and severe deprivation after arrival.", "story": "In 1937, the Soviet government ordered the removal of Koreans from the Far East to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. J. Otto Pohl describes a campaign driven by official suspicion that ethnic Koreans might assist Japanese intelligence. These were state allegations against a population, not findings of individual guilt.\n\nPohl identifies an order of 21 August targeting Koreans in the Far East’s border districts, followed on 28 September by an order covering the remaining Korean population east of Lake Baikal. He reports that the NKVD had transported 171,781 Koreans to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan by 25 October, and records a final removal of 700 on 1 November. These are Pohl’s operation figures at different dates, not a new combined total or a count of deaths.\n\nRemoval was followed by deprivation in the receiving regions. Pohl describes local authorities unprepared for the arrivals, inadequate shelter, and families living in dugouts or temporary huts. Many deportees could not find work; letters to the government complained of unemployment and impending starvation. Pohl distinguishes their classification as administrative exiles from the special-settler category, while emphasizing that the distinction did not ensure adequate food or housing.\n\nPohl reports deaths from disease, malnutrition and exposure. Citing Michael Rywkin, he gives an estimate of 40,000 deaths, or 23.2 percent, during 1937–1938. This attributed estimate concerns the wider aftermath in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, not deaths on the trains alone or a verified death total for this atlas event’s 1937 window. Rywkin’s underlying study has not been independently checked here.\n\nPohl also interprets the deportation as supplying cheap labor to the receiving republics. That interpretation sits alongside his evidence of unemployment and disrupted livelihoods; it does not establish one uniform work arrangement for every deportee. This case covers the 1937 Korean removal operation and completion of its initial transports. Accompanying Chinese removals, later births, and subsequent deportations of other populations are excluded.", "contested": "The reported removal figures and the attributed 1937–1938 mortality estimate have different dates and meanings. No combined removal total, transport death count, affected-community share or structured impact estimate is adopted. The underlying administrative records and Rywkin study were not independently read.", "note": "The profile is retained from the existing dataset. Its zero for imported unfree labor does not mean that removal was voluntary or that the deportees escaped exploitation. Pohl discusses cheap labor as an outcome but also documents unemployment; the passages read do not establish a uniform labor arrangement or its scale. Settler implantation remains marked as insufficient evidence.", "placeGloss": "The Soviet Far East, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are broad locations named in the source, not plotted departure or receiving settlements.", "geometryExplanation": "The precise departure places, receiving settlements and transport paths are not established for mapping here. No route, endpoint or territorial footprint is plotted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_soviet_korean_deportation_pohl_2000" ] }, { "id": "prospective-balkan-ottoman-bulgarian-village-removal-1913", "name": "Killing and displacement at Boulgar-Keui and Pichman-Keui", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "local", "dates": "1913", "periods": [ { "start": 1913, "end": 1913, "yearLabel": "1913", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Bulgarian residents of Boulgar-Keui and Pichman-Keui, including survivors displaced during the July 1913 offensive" ], "settlers": [ "Ottoman military authorities and troops; some testimony alleges Greek participation in particular acts, without establishing a distinct incoming settler cohort" ], "evidence": "The Carnegie Commission combines mediated refugee depositions, a survivor interview and documentary material; its conclusions remain attributed.", "story": "During the Ottoman offensive in eastern Thrace in July 1913, Bulgarian residents of Boulgar-Keui and neighboring Pichman-Keui suffered killing, sexual violence, plunder and displacement. The Carnegie Commission’s 1914 report describes the two villages together, while giving more detailed testimony for Boulgar-Keui. Its account combines refugee depositions transmitted by relief workers, an interview with a male survivor in Constantinople, and Greek official documents reproduced or discussed in the report.\n\nFor Boulgar-Keui, the report describes soldiers taking property before an order summoned the men of the village. The survivor account says that the assembled men were shot. Refugee women reported searches for men, killings at homes and sexual violence. Some testimony also alleged Greek participation in particular acts, including binding men and assaults. These are attributed participant accounts; they do not establish an identical actor pattern in every village. Testimony from Pichman-Keui includes sexual violence against a named elderly woman.\n\nThe Commission interpreted the combined evidence as showing a systematic military purpose to destroy the Bulgarian population. That is the Commission’s conclusion, rather than a separately authenticated extermination order. Its wider discussion reproduces Greek reports about other localities; those neighboring episodes are not added to this two-village case.\n\nSurvivors became refugees. The Commission reports women from the villages being questioned in Haskovo and Varna. It also describes a broader group of displaced Bulgarians eventually sent to Bulgaria after being mistaken for Greeks, and identifies women from Boulgar-Keui among those later seen at Varna. That broader movement is not a complete itinerary or count for either village. The account preserves severe violence and loss without providing one reconciled total of those killed, displaced or able to return.", "contested": "The sources give differently scoped house, family, victim and survivor figures. They also use a July sequence including old-style dates; no single harmonized day or casualty total is adopted.", "note": "This case excludes other eastern-Thrace villages, the Cisr-i Mustafa Paşa episode, Western-Thrace militia removals and later population exchanges. Death and displacement totals remain unassessed; that uncertainty does not negate the reported killings, sexual violence and loss of homes.", "placeGloss": "The historical village names are textual orientation only; no modern-location match is adopted.", "geometryExplanation": "No village footprint, survivor destination, route or point is plotted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_bulgarian_villages_carnegie_1914" ] }, { "id": "ca-soviet-meskhetian-turk-deportation", "name": "Soviet deportation of Meskhetian Turks and other Muslim communities from Georgia", "region": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1944", "periods": [ { "start": 1944, "end": 1944, "yearLabel": "1944", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Meskhetian Turks, Kurds, Khemshils and other Muslim communities removed from southern Georgia in November 1944" ], "settlers": [ "The Soviet government, NKVD and NKGB directing compulsory removal and resettlement; the arriving deportees are not thereby identified as voluntary colonizers" ], "evidence": "Pohl describes the bounded November 1944 operation and distinguishes recorded transit deaths from deprivation and mortality after arrival.", "story": "Between 15 and 26 November 1944, Soviet security agencies removed Meskhetian Turks, Kurds, Khemshils and other Muslim communities from Georgia’s border region to special settlements in Central Asia. Historian J. Otto Pohl links Stalin’s order to preparations for a possible war with Turkey and official fears that these communities might assist Turkish intelligence. Those suspicions were a rationale for collective removal, not demonstrated individual guilt.\n\nPohl reports that the NKVD and NKGB deported 94,955 people in this operation to Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kirghizia, now Kyrgyzstan. That figure covers the several communities named in his account; it is not a count of Meskhetian Turks alone. The geographic names identify broad departure and receiving regions, not a verified itinerary or a single settlement.\n\nThe journey itself cost lives. Pohl states that the NKVD recorded 457 deaths in transit among this contingent, and cautions that the actual number was probably much higher. The recorded figure is therefore an attributed administrative count with an explicit undercount warning, not a complete death toll.\n\nDeprivation continued after arrival. Pohl describes inadequate housing, food and medicine, overcrowding, and outbreaks of disease. He cites a report dated 15 January 1945 in which the NKVD chief of Uzbekistan said that 8,000 deportees from Georgia in that republic lacked sufficient food, clothing and shoes. This is a later report about a receiving-republic subgroup, not an additional deportation total.\n\nFor the longer aftermath, Pohl reports that the NKVD–MVD recorded 19,047 deaths among Meskhetian Turks, Kurds and Khemshils in special settlements during 1945–1950. This multi-community figure concerns years after the 1944 removal operation; it is neither a Turks-only total nor a transport death count. In his article published in 2000, Pohl also wrote that most of these exiles were still unable to return to their homes in Georgia. That is a dated observation, not a claim that present-day return conditions have been verified here.", "contested": "The reported removal, transit-death, January 1945 deprivation and 1945–1950 mortality figures have different scopes. None is adopted as a structured impact estimate for this 1944 event, and they are not added together or narrowed to Meskhetian Turks alone. The underlying records were not independently checked.", "note": "The existing profile is retained. Its zero for imported unfree labor does not make the deportation voluntary or erase the deprivation described here. Special-settlement status in the passages read does not establish this cohort’s particular work obligations or the scale of unfree labor; no new labor score is inferred.", "placeGloss": "Southern Georgia and the receiving republics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kirghizia (now Kyrgyzstan) are broad textual orientation.", "geometryExplanation": "No departure locality, receiving settlement, transport route or territorial footprint is plotted. The account supports regional orientation only.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_meskhetian_deportation_pohl_2000" ] }, { "id": "prospective-soviet-balkar-deportation-1944-1957", "name": "Deportation of the Balkars and authorization to return", "region": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1944–1957", "periods": [ { "start": 1944, "end": 1957, "yearLabel": "1944–1957", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Balkars removed from Kabardino-Balkaria in the March 1944 operation and living under the subsequent exile regime" ], "settlers": [ "Soviet authorities directing deportation and later restoration; no distinct voluntary incoming settler cohort is established here" ], "evidence": "Pohl and Helsinki Watch supply differently scoped operation, population, mortality and restoration evidence; their shared underlying authorities are not independent corroboration.", "story": "In March 1944, Soviet authorities removed the Balkars from their North Caucasian homeland to special settlements in Kazakhstan and Kirghizia, now Kyrgyzstan. Historian J. Otto Pohl dates the NKVD operation to 8–9 March and reports 37,713 Balkars exiled. Helsinki Watch describes settlements surrounded on 8 March, residents driven by truck to railheads, and transport in cattle cars. Its estimate of 42,666 refers to the Balkar population at the time; it is not substituted for Pohl’s operation count.\n\nThe journey was lethal. Pohl reports that close to 3,500 Balkars died en route. Helsinki Watch, citing Vera Tolz, gives 3,494 presumed transit deaths. These remain attributed source reports, not a newly reconciled death toll. Helsinki Watch also describes non-Balkar women married to Balkar men being offered a choice between breaking their marital ties and remaining at home or sharing their husbands’ and children’s exile. Collective punishment disrupted families as well as removing people from their homes.\n\nPohl describes crowded trains, disease and severe shortages of food, medicine and shelter among the deported North Caucasian peoples. His later housing and mortality figures combine several nationalities; they cannot be assigned to Balkars alone. Helsinki Watch connects the removal with suppression of Balkar autonomy and describes the restrictions of the special-settlement system. Neither the hardship nor the absence of a separately verified total should be mistaken for a complete account of each family’s experience.\n\nPolicy changed after Khrushchev’s 1956 speech condemning the deportations. Helsinki Watch reports that the Balkars were exempted from special-settlement regulations, followed by a decree of 9 January 1957 reorganizing the Kabardinian republic as the Kabardino-Balkar republic. The 1957 boundary here marks this restoration and opening for return, not a claim that everyone had returned by then.\n\nReturn did not restore everything that had been lost. Helsinki Watch, drawing on its 1991 interview with Balkar historian Khanafiy Khutuev, describes returnees finding pillaged and damaged homes and farms. The report describes substantial return over time, but its later population and return estimates are not a measure of completed return in 1957. Permission to return, actual return and recovery of homes and autonomy were distinct outcomes.", "contested": "37,713 deportees and an estimated population of 42,666 are different source scopes. The reported transit-death figures are not averaged, added or converted into a new percentage. Aggregate North Caucasian deaths and later census populations are not Balkar event totals.", "note": "Karachays and other deported nationalities are excluded from this case’s cohort. The profile is retained, including insufficient evidence for legal/property machinery, durability and separation from homeland. Imported-labor applicability is not established by these passages; exile and deprivation do not by themselves settle work obligations. Structured death and displacement totals remain unassessed.", "placeGloss": "Kabardino-Balkaria, Kazakhstan and Kirghizia (now Kyrgyzstan) are regional textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "No household route, transport stop, receiving settlement or territorial footprint is plotted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_balkar_pohl_2000", "v7_balkar_helsinki_watch_1991" ] }, { "id": "prospective-nk-operation-ring-armenian-displacement-1991", "name": "Operation Ring: expulsion from Armenian villages", "region": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1991", "periods": [ { "start": 1991, "end": 1991, "yearLabel": "1991", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Armenian civilian communities within the bounded Shahumyan/Geranboi and Chaikent/Getashen Operation Ring referent" ], "settlers": [ "Azerbaijani SSR OMON and USSR forces as described by the Court and Human Rights Watch; no distinct incoming settler cohort is established here" ], "evidence": "The Sargsyan judgment provides an attributed April–May 1991 background account; Human Rights Watch names Operation Ring and distinguishes expulsions from later returns and the 1992 counteroffensive.", "story": "In April and May 1991, USSR internal forces and Azerbaijani SSR special-purpose militia units, known as OMON, carried out an operation in Armenian villages with the stated purpose of checking passports and disarming local Armenian militants. This dating and terminology come from the historical background in the European Court of Human Rights’ Sargsyan judgment. That account reports that government forces used the stated purpose as a pretext to expel Armenian residents from villages in the Shahumyan region, with arrests and violence against civilians.\n\nHuman Rights Watch describes Operation Ring more broadly as taking place in the spring and summer of 1991, naming Azerbaijani OMON accompanied by Soviet Army troops. Its account records the authorities’ passport and weapons explanations alongside reported violent removals. These descriptions identify each source’s account; they do not establish a newly verified single command structure or expand this case beyond the bounded April–May phase.\n\nThe judgment describes people forced from their homes toward Nagorno-Karabakh or Armenia. Human Rights Watch separately identifies forced displacement from Geranboi, also known as Shaumyan, and from Chaikent/Getashen. These places locate affected communities in the sources, rather than defining a complete village roster or a route followed by every household. Arrest, violence and loss of access to home remain the central harms described here; no complete death or displacement total is established.\n\nHuman Rights Watch notes that some displaced people returned in late 1991 and early 1992. Those returns are aftermath context, not evidence that all residents returned or recovered their property. The later June 1992 counteroffensive and the Sargsyan applicant’s own displacement in 1992 belong outside this case. Earlier pogroms, later district offensives and subsequent onward movements are also excluded.", "contested": "The Court refers to various sources for the expulsions; its background account is not independent project verification of every participant or order. Human Rights Watch’s broader spring–summer wording is not used to invent one precise ending day for the narrower phase. Source village counts and general war refugee stocks are not event totals.", "note": "The Court’s historical background and Human Rights Watch’s reporting have distinct scopes. The 1991 removal episode is not the applicant’s 1992 flight or the subject of every later legal finding. The existing profile is retained, including its partial and insufficient-evidence displays; the passages read do not establish a uniform work regime, property transfer or permanent ban on return.", "placeGloss": "Shahumyan/Geranboi and Chaikent/Getashen are source names for affected areas and communities, not plotted event endpoints.", "geometryExplanation": "No village point, household destination, transport route or territorial footprint is plotted. Regional orientation does not imply that every displaced family followed one path.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_operation_ring_sargsyan_2015", "v7_operation_ring_hrw_1994" ] }, { "id": "prospective-post-liberation-kuwaiti-expulsion-and-residency-pressure", "name": "Post-liberation expulsion and residency pressure against Palestinians in Kuwait", "region": "Middle East and North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1991", "periods": [ { "start": 1991, "end": 1991, "yearLabel": "1991", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Palestinians still present in Kuwait after 26 February 1991 who were expelled or pressured to depart, including long-term residents and affected families" ], "settlers": [ "Restored Kuwaiti authorities, security forces, government employers and residency authorities; no distinct incoming settler population is established by this account" ], "evidence": "A contemporary Middle East Watch report connects direct deportation and coercive pressure while distinguishing changes during 1991. Its witnesses and cited materials remain mediated through the report.", "story": "After the Kuwaiti government returned from exile on 26 February 1991, Palestinians still living in Kuwait faced arrests, expulsions and pressure to leave. Middle East Watch’s account describes a campaign against alleged collaborators with the Iraqi occupation that affected long-term residents. Its report places responsibility for much of the abuse on official security forces and armed groups working closely with them; accusations against whole communities did not establish individual guilt.\n\nThe pressure included physical violence. Middle East Watch reports killings, torture, deaths in custody and disappearances after liberation, with Palestinians among those affected. Its account describes summary expulsions beginning in March and regular large-scale deportations from June. Families could be caught in the roundups. The report describes people being deported even after they had been cleared of accusations or acquitted, and says that most deportees had no practical opportunity to challenge their removal. These are the report’s findings, not a complete record of each Palestinian resident’s experience.\n\nGovernment employment and residence rules reinforced the pressure. According to the report, the authorities terminated foreign and Bedoon government employees’ contracts retroactively to the start of the Iraqi occupation. Palestinian employees were among those losing jobs and unpaid wages; severance payments were held until departure arrangements were completed. The report connects job loss with administrative deportability under the Foreign Residents Act, including provisions concerning financial support and the termination of foreign government employees’ jobs. Loss of employment could therefore undermine both a household’s livelihood and its ability to remain.\n\nForeign residents were also required to re-register for residence permits. The deadline was extended to 31 December 1991; the report warned that people who had not secured employment risked summary deportation afterward unless the period was extended again. Some detention conditions and procedures improved later in the year, but the report says expulsions and pressure to leave continued. This case’s 1991 endpoint bounds the documented sequence, not the end of every exclusion or consequence.\n\nThis account concerns Palestinians present after liberation who were expelled or pressured to depart. Palestinians who had already left during the occupation and war form a separate cohort. The government’s subsequent refusal to readmit most of those earlier leavers is not counted here as another departure. The report combines several nationalities in many of its figures and does not supply a complete, nonduplicative roster of Palestinian expulsions, family departures and departures under pressure.", "contested": "The approximately 180,000 Palestinians who left during occupation and war are excluded. Mixed Palestinian, Bedoon, Iraqi and other resident figures, detention stocks and before-and-after population estimates cannot be added or subtracted into a Palestinian operation total. Direct removal and pressured departure are distinct forms of coercion, but the report does not link them for every person.", "note": "The complete existing profile is retained. Legal and property machinery, durability, separation from homeland and imported-labor applicability remain insufficiently established in that profile; elimination over incorporation retains its evidence range. Describing documented residency and employment measures does not certify every inherited score. Structured death and displacement totals remain unassessed. The separate report Nowhere to Go was not read for this account.", "placeGloss": "Kuwait is regional textual orientation only; no complete departure-destination pattern is established.", "geometryExplanation": "No individual departure route, border crossing, detention-site marker or territorial footprint is plotted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_kuwait_post_liberation_mew_wr1992" ] }, { "id": "prospective-post-surrender-anti-bihari-displacement-and-dispossession", "name": "Post-surrender violence and dispossession of Biharis in Bangladesh", "region": "South Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "From 1971; end unresolved", "periods": [ { "start": 1971, "end": 1971, "yearLabel": "From 1971 — end unresolved", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Bihari and other Urdu-speaking non-Bengali residents targeted after the Pakistani surrender; later transfers and refugee returns are distinct movements." ], "settlers": [ "People involved in anti-Bihari retaliation and property seizure; later Bangladesh and Pakistan authorities shaped citizenship and transfer options. No complete perpetrator roster or distinct incoming settler population is established." ], "evidence": "UNHCR’s 2000 retrospective describes post-surrender killings and property seizure, then a prolonged camp and citizenship aftermath. It does not provide a complete victim total, movement sequence or common endpoint.", "story": "After the Pakistani army surrendered in mid-December 1971, Biharis in the newly independent Bangladesh faced retaliatory violence. UNHCR’s retrospective explains that the community was perceived as aligned with Pakistan and that many Biharis had joined Pakistani militias or collaborated with the army. That account does not establish the conduct of every individual. UNHCR reports that many Biharis were killed and much of their property was seized. Collective suspicion exposed people to violence and loss of their homes and possessions.\n\nThe consequences extended beyond the initial attacks. UNHCR describes problems acquiring citizenship under Bangladesh’s 1972 provisions concerning allegiance to a foreign state. It also notes that many Biharis were accepted in practice. Its account of 1999 nevertheless records more than 200,000 Biharis living in 66 camps with poor facilities. This later camp population is not a count of those initially attacked or displaced, and the passage does not establish that everyone was forcibly transported into a camp or held under one detention order.\n\nTransfers to Pakistan were a later response to the changed political situation. The August 1973 New Delhi Agreement covered several populations, including non-Bengalis in Bangladesh who opted for repatriation to Pakistan. UNHCR describes restrictive admission by Pakistan, a further agreement in April 1974 and additional transfers in later years. Those movements are kept separate from the initiating violence and dispossession; their totals cannot be added together as the number of victims of this event.\n\nWriting in 2000, UNHCR described unresolved citizenship and a refugee-like existence for many Biharis, while noting indications that some preferred Bangladeshi nationality. These are observations from that publication’s period, not a claim about everyone’s legal status today. The source establishes neither a single end to the dispossession nor a common date when affected families recovered secure homes and citizenship. The event therefore begins after the 1971 surrender and leaves its endpoint unresolved.", "contested": "The read UNHCR passages do not identify a complete perpetrator roster, a single central order, every route into camp residence, or complete killing and property-loss totals. Later camp stocks and transfer figures have different dates and populations. The ICJ report named in the frozen source record has not been read and is not used to fill these gaps.", "note": "The preceding Pakistani-army displacement, Bengali and Hindu refugee returns from India, and subsequent agreed transfers are excluded from the initiating unit. Death and displacement totals remain unassessed; that uncertainty does not negate the documented killings and property seizure. The profile’s uncertain traits remain visible. The timeline position marks the 1971 start, not a resolved end in that year.", "placeGloss": "Bangladesh is the setting; Pakistan and India appear in the distinct return and transfer context. No individual itinerary is mapped.", "geometryExplanation": "No verified event-specific origins, receiving camps, routes or territorial footprint are plotted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_anti_bihari_unhcr_2000" ] }, { "id": "prospective-istanbul-pogrom-1955", "name": "Anti-Greek pogrom in Istanbul", "region": "Europe / Middle East", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "6–7 September 1955", "periods": [ { "start": 1955, "end": 1955, "yearLabel": "6–7 September 1955", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Greek residents of Istanbul targeted by violence and destruction; later departures are reported without a complete roster" ], "settlers": [ "Organized rioters and looters; police nonintervention or encouragement is reported, with government involvement in the bombing pretext attributed to a later court finding; no distinct incoming settler cohort established" ], "evidence": "Helsinki Watch’s retrospective report combines contemporary consular observations, reported figures and an account of a later court finding.", "story": "On 6–7 September 1955, organized anti-Greek violence struck Istanbul’s Greek residents and communal institutions. Helsinki Watch’s account describes the looting and destruction of homes, businesses, churches, schools, monasteries and cemeteries. It quotes the American Consul-General reporting that he saw shops looted while police stood aside or encouraged the mob. A subsequent consular dispatch reproduced in the report’s notes described widespread wrecking, looting and desecration, with some buildings damaged by fire. These observations are presented through Helsinki Watch’s later report, not a complete record of every attacker or police officer.\n\nThe destruction involved bodily harm as well as property loss. Helsinki Watch reports more than 4,000 Greek shops sacked and more than 2,000 homes vandalized and robbed, along with extensive damage to religious and educational institutions. The report contrasts the Turkish government’s initial account of three people killed and thirty injured with subsequent reports of fifteen deaths. It also records competing monetary-loss estimates. These are attributed reports, not a reconciled casualty list or property inventory; the exact scale is not established here.\n\nThe violence was presented as a response to a bombing at the Turkish consulate in Thessaloniki that also damaged the nearby birthplace of Kemal Atatürk. According to Helsinki Watch, a Turkish court six years later found that Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and other government figures had ordered that bombing to incite and justify anti-Greek violence. This account of a later court finding does not establish an independently verified order for every act committed during the pogrom.\n\nHelsinki Watch says that some thousands of Greeks left Istanbul after the riots, while explicitly noting that exact numbers had never been established. The destruction of homes, livelihoods and communal places therefore had a departure aftermath, but the account does not give a complete roster, a common destination or a date when every departure ended. This case is bounded to the Istanbul pogrom of 6–7 September 1955. The separate 1964 expulsion and asset-control program and the histories of Imbros and Tenedos are excluded.", "contested": "Casualty, damage, monetary-loss and departure figures are reported or approximate. Different reports are not added into a single total. The passage does not establish a complete command chain, attacker roster or departure itinerary.", "note": "The complete existing profile is retained: government direction and elimination over incorporation show evidence ranges; durability and separation from homeland remain insufficiently established; imported unfree labor remains structurally not applicable. These indicators are not death or displacement counts. Structured impact remains unassessed.", "placeGloss": "Istanbul provides textual orientation only; no attacked-site inventory or departure destination is mapped.", "geometryExplanation": "No historical footprint, route, origin point or destination point is adopted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_istanbul_pogrom_1955_helsinki_watch" ] }, { "id": "prospective-soviet-karachay-deportation-1943-1957", "name": "Deportation of the Karachays and the difficult return from exile", "region": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "From 1943 — end unresolved", "periods": [ { "start": 1943, "end": 1943, "yearLabel": "From 1943 — end unresolved", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Karachays deported from the Karachay Autonomous Oblast in November 1943 and living through exile and the subsequent return process" ], "settlers": [ "Soviet authorities directing deportation, exile and rehabilitation; the Karachay deportee cohort, with no separate voluntary incoming settler population established here" ], "evidence": "Pohl’s historical article and Helsinki Watch’s report distinguish the operation, earlier population, exile and later return testimony. Their underlying sources may overlap.", "story": "On 6 November 1943, the NKVD deported the Karachays from the Karachay Autonomous Oblast to special settlements in Kazakhstan, Kirghizia—now Kyrgyzstan—and other eastern areas of the Soviet Union. Historian J. Otto Pohl reports 68,939 deportees. Helsinki Watch describes the November arrests and removal without warning, drawing on earlier historical accounts. The removal also abolished the Karachay autonomous territory; the report says that part of it was transferred to Georgia.\n\nHelsinki Watch, quoting Robert Conquest, describes families assembled outdoors before being taken to railheads. Pohl describes the deported North Caucasian peoples crowded into cattle cars, with disease and deaths during the journeys. Helsinki Watch’s Karachay section characterizes the deportation as exceptionally harsh and reports heavy losses through its cited authorities. These accounts establish serious harm without supplying a separately verified Karachay death toll. Pohl’s transit-death figures for Balkars or all North Caucasian deportees are not figures for this case.\n\nExile continued the disruption. Pohl specifically notes reports of severe food shortages among Karachays soon after their arrival in Kazakhstan in November 1943. His broader discussion describes inadequate housing, food and medicine among several deported North Caucasian peoples. Those combined figures cannot be assigned to Karachays alone. Helsinki Watch gives 75,737 as the Karachay population in the 1939 census; that earlier population is distinct from Pohl’s 68,939 operation deportees.\n\nPolicy changed after Khrushchev’s 1956 speech condemning the deportations. Helsinki Watch reports a decree of 24 November 1956 restoring national autonomy to the peoples concerned, but describes the Karachays’ incorporation into a Karachay-Cherkess autonomous region rather than restoration of their former separate region. Permission to return opened a path home. Neither that permission nor the report’s statement that most returned soon afterward establishes a date when return was complete.\n\nReturn did not automatically restore homes or compensate losses. Helsinki Watch’s published 1991 interview with Karachay spokesman Kazbek Iskhakovich Chomaev describes initial restrictions on building homes and a lack of compensation provisions. He said returnees received little assistance and that some went back to their places of exile. This is an attributed account from 1991, not a statement about conditions today. The case begins in 1943; its closing year remains unresolved.", "contested": "68,939 operation deportees and 75,737 people in the 1939 census are different counts. Aggregate North Caucasian mortality, Balkar losses and later census populations cannot establish Karachay deaths or a return rate. The closing year remains unknown.", "note": "Balkars and other deported nationalities are excluded from this case’s cohort. The full profile is retained: legal and property machinery has partial evidence, while lethal coercion, durability and separation from homeland have insufficient evidence for a solid point. Those limits do not erase the reported deaths and deprivation. The imported-labor zero does not mean that exile was voluntary or that no coerced work occurred; the passages read do not establish detailed Karachay work assignments. Structured death and displacement totals remain unassessed. The 1943 timeline position marks the start, not a completed return.", "placeGloss": "The Karachay homeland, Kazakhstan and Kirghizia (now Kyrgyzstan) are regional textual context only.", "geometryExplanation": "No individual route, railhead, receiving settlement or territorial footprint is plotted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_karachay_pohl_2000", "v7_karachay_helsinki_watch_1991" ] }, { "id": "prospective-istanbul-expulsion-and-asset-measures-1964", "name": "Expulsion of Greek citizens from Istanbul and restrictions on their assets", "region": "Europe / Middle East", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1964", "periods": [ { "start": 1964, "end": 1964, "yearLabel": "1964", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Greek citizens living in Istanbul who were expelled or denied residence renewal; Turkish citizens of Greek descent who departed under pressure are a distinct associated group" ], "settlers": [ "Turkish government and authorities directing expulsion, residence permits and asset restrictions; no distinct incoming settler cohort is established here" ], "evidence": "Helsinki Watch’s retrospective report distinguishes the 1964 state program, citizenship groups and reported property restrictions; its underlying decrees and press accounts were not independently read.", "story": "On 16 March 1964, the Turkish government began expelling Greeks who held Greek citizenship. Helsinki Watch places the action in a period of heightened tension over Cyprus and describes the government’s stated security justification. The people affected included Greeks born in Turkey, some of whom had never been to Greece. Citizenship determined the legal target of the expulsion program; it did not establish that each person posed a threat.\n\nThe removals allowed little time to prepare. Helsinki Watch reports that over a thousand people were promptly expelled, most on only a few hours’ notice, with permission to take just $22 and one suitcase of clothes. It reports another 5,000 expelled shortly afterward. After September, the government stopped renewing Greek citizens’ residence permits, and the report describes a further 10,000 to 11,000 expulsions. These are reported figures for different stages, not a newly verified total; the report’s footnote also cites a different estimate of 9,000.\n\nThe pressure reached beyond those legally expelled. Helsinki Watch cites an October 1964 newspaper report that 30,000 Turkish citizens of Greek descent had also left permanently. Those departures are a distinct reported group, not another count of Greek citizens served with expulsion orders. The report describes continued departures in later years by people fearful for their lives and property; that later history is context, rather than an extension of this case’s initiating 1964 program.\n\nProperty controls made departure more damaging. According to Helsinki Watch, Greeks affected by the measures could not sell their homes or other property or withdraw money from their bank accounts. Its footnote identifies Ministerial Decree No. 6/3807/1964 as ordering seizure of Greek citizens’ real property and bank accounts, and Decree No. 3706/1964 as prohibiting their acquisition of real property. These descriptions establish the reported policy machinery, not the disposition of every person’s assets.\n\nThe consequences outlasted the year of expulsion. Helsinki Watch reports that the ban on selling property was lifted in 1989, followed by complicated court proceedings, many still pending when the report appeared in 1992. That later change does not move the event’s endpoint to 1989 or establish complete restitution. The 1955 pogrom and the separate history of Imbros and Tenedos are outside this case.", "contested": "The reported expulsion and departure figures are not a person-level roster and are not added together. Different citizenship groups, households and reporting periods may overlap. The report does not establish each asset outcome or a complete death toll for this program.", "note": "The full profile is preserved, including the evidence range for elimination over incorporation, insufficient evidence for durability and separation from homeland, and the structural imported-labor status. The source account does not newly certify those scores. Structured death and displacement totals remain unassessed. The 1964 boundary covers the initiating expulsion and asset measures; the 1989 change is aftermath, not complete restitution or a current legal-status claim.", "placeGloss": "Istanbul and Greece are geographic context; no individual departure itinerary is mapped.", "geometryExplanation": "No route, border crossing, receiving settlement or territorial footprint is plotted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_istanbul1964_helsinki_watch_1992" ] }, { "id": "mena-iraq-marsh-arab-displacement", "name": "Drainage and forced displacement of Iraq's Marsh Arabs", "region": "Middle East and North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1991–2003", "periods": [ { "start": 1991, "end": 2003, "yearLabel": "1991–2003", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Marsh Arab communities of southeastern Iraq whose subsistence and homes were undermined by government policies" ], "settlers": [ "Iraqi government authorities responsible for repression and water diversion; no distinct incoming settler population established by the cited passage" ], "evidence": "Human Rights Watch’s pre-invasion account describes water diversion, destruction of subsistence and forced displacement; its population estimate cites an underlying study not independently read here.", "story": "In the early 1990s, the Iraqi government diverted water from the southeastern marshlands near the Tigris and Euphrates through dams and canals. Human Rights Watch’s pre-invasion account describes this as repression of the Marsh Arabs. The government presented displacement from the marshes as a way to provide better living conditions. HRW instead reports that the policies deprived people of food, destroyed their agricultural traditions and forced them from their homes.\n\nHRW connects this assault on the marshes to the 1991 revolt and to the government’s hostility toward people it regarded as opponents. The report also describes the believed presence of army deserters and political opponents in the marshes, alongside earlier drainage and oil-development plans. These are the report’s explanations of the policy’s background; they do not establish that every resident was an insurgent or that a proposed oil project was completed. The documented harm was the destruction of conditions needed to live in the marshes and the displacement that followed.\n\nThe report states that at least 100,000 displaced Marsh Arabs were among approximately 300,000 displaced people in southern Iraq. This is a reported population already displaced at the time of the account, not a count of new removals during a single operation. The wider southern estimate includes other people and cannot be added to the Marsh Arab figure. HRW cites an October 2002 study for this passage; that underlying study has not been independently read here. This account is limited to conditions reported before the 2003 invasion and does not establish when displacement or return was complete.", "contested": "The source reports a displaced population rather than a complete event roster. It does not establish a common destination, an exact event total, individual attack chronology or the completion of return. Northern Iraq’s Arabization and property-transfer measures belong to separate cases.", "note": "The frozen 1991–2003 event bounds and complete eight-trait profile are retained. The source account stops before the 2003 invasion; the ending year does not establish completed displacement or return. The reported population stock is not a new quantitative impact estimate.", "placeGloss": "The southeastern Iraqi marshlands near the Tigris and Euphrates provide textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "No historical drainage footprint, departure route, origin point or destination point is adopted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_marsh_arabs_hrw_displaced_2003" ] }, { "id": "prospective-palestinian-occupation-and-war-flight-from-kuwait-1990-1991", "name": "Palestinian flight from Kuwait during Iraqi occupation and Gulf War conditions, 1990–1991", "region": "Middle East and North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1990–1991 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1990, "end": 1991, "yearLabel": "1990–1991 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Palestinian residents of Kuwait who left during Iraqi occupation and Gulf War conditions; the report does not provide a complete person-level or legal-status roster" ], "settlers": [ "Iraqi occupation and Gulf War conditions drove the movement described here; the restored Kuwaiti government enters the account only through later non-readmission and absentee-property measures. No distinct incoming settler cohort is established." ], "evidence": "Middle East Watch distinguishes the occupation/war leavers from later post-liberation measures and reports their approximate number, abandoned homes and property, predominant destination, and blocked return.", "story": "During the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and the Gulf War, a large part of Kuwait’s Palestinian community left the country. Middle East Watch reports that around 180,000 Palestinians departed to avoid the hardships of occupation and war. In many cases, they left homes and property accumulated over decades. Most reportedly went to Jordan, while some had no country in which they were entitled to reside.\n\nThe report does not divide this population into people fleeing occupation, active warfare or both, and it does not provide a person-level roster or complete set of routes and destinations. The reported figure therefore remains an attributed approximation in the narrative. It is not used here as a structured displacement total.\n\nAfter Kuwait was liberated, the restored Kuwaiti government refused to readmit almost all of the people in this reported cohort. Middle East Watch also describes a July 1991 measure affecting property left in rented homes. These were later consequences for people who had already left; they are not counted as another movement.\n\nThis case is limited to the occupation- and war-era flight. A separate case covers Palestinians who were still in Kuwait after liberation and were then expelled or pressured to depart. The source does not provide a complete crosswalk between those populations, so their counts cannot be combined and exact person-level disjointness remains unresolved.", "contested": "The source does not supply a person roster, exact legal-status breakdown, causal allocation between occupation and war, complete route or destination set, month-by-month departure series, or person-level crosswalk with the post-liberation sibling. The reported movement count is approximate and must not be added to the sibling’s figures.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Around 180,000 remains an attributed narrative figure rather than structured impact. Later non-readmission is return foreclosure for the same reported cohort, not a second departure. Exact disjointness from the post-liberation sibling remains unresolved.", "placeGloss": "Kuwait and Jordan provide textual orientation only; the source says most went to Jordan but does not give a complete destination set.", "geometryExplanation": "No exact origins within Kuwait, routes, border crossings, receiving settlements or complete destination geometry are adopted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_kuwait_occupation_war_flight_mew_wr1992" ] }, { "id": "ca-soviet-volga-german-deportation", "name": "Soviet deportation and confinement of Volga Germans", "region": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1941–1955", "periods": [ { "start": 1941, "end": 1955, "yearLabel": "1941–1955", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Volga Germans forcibly removed from the Volga region; broader Soviet-German deportation and labor-army populations remain separately described" ], "settlers": [ "Soviet government and NKVD authorities directing deportation, special settlement and compulsory labor; the sources do not establish a bounded incoming replacement-settler cohort" ], "evidence": "Pohl and Helsinki Watch document the 1941 Volga operation, special-settlement confinement, forced-labor transfers and the limited 1955 change in status. Broader and overlapping Soviet-German figures remain distinct and attributed.", "story": "After Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, Soviet leaders treated German ethnicity as a collective security threat. Pohl traces a sequence of leadership decisions, an NKVD operational order and the 28 August decree directing removal from the Volga region. Helsinki Watch reports that the decree accused the population collectively and that a September decree transferred the territory of the Volga German republic to the Saratov and Stalingrad provinces. The evidence does not establish individual disloyalty; Helsinki Watch also notes Soviet Germans who had fought against Nazi Germany.\n\nPohl reports that between 3 and 20 September 1941 the NKVD forcibly deported more than half a million Soviet Germans from the Volga region to special settlements in Kazakhstan, Siberia, the Urals and Central Asia. This is an attributed operation-scale statement, not a verified roster. His later figures of 799,459 Soviet Germans in special settlements by 1 January 1942 and 1,209,430 by 1946 cover broader Soviet-German populations and later stages. They are not Volga-only totals and are not added to the Volga operation figure.\n\nRemoval was followed by confinement and compulsory labor. Pohl describes primitive special-settlement housing and reports that nearly 400,000 Soviet Germans were mobilized into labor battalions and colonies during the war. Helsinki Watch likewise reports forced-labor drafting and a postwar decree that treated assigned settlements as permanent and punished unauthorized departure. The labor-army figure covers a broader and overlapping Soviet-German population. It therefore remains separate from deportation and special-settlement figures.\n\nThe conditions were lethal, but the retained evidence does not support a single structured death total for this case. Pohl states that Soviet-German statistics for deportation, special settlements and the labor army are incomplete and contradictory for 1941–1944. His cited excess-mortality range and postwar administrative table have different scopes and periods. They remain attributed evidence of severe harm rather than a death, displacement, community-share or world-share indicator.\n\nThe special-settlement regime outlasted the war. Helsinki Watch reports that a 13 December 1955 decree freed Germans from MVD surveillance but withheld confiscated property and did not permit return to the places from which they had been deported. The endpoint therefore marks a change in surveillance status, not restitution, completed return or restoration of Volga German autonomy. Later measures in 1964 and 1974 form aftermath: the collective accusation was voided and return was eventually allowed, while the autonomous republic remained unrestored and practical barriers continued.\n\nThe full statistical profile is retained without recertification. The sources directly document forced labor as a receiving condition and transfer stage, while the frozen F8 imported-unfree-labor value remains zero. That tension is visible here and is not resolved by this authoring packet. Any F8 reconciliation or recoding requires separate Astra High review.", "contested": "The retained sources do not provide a person-level crosswalk across deportation, special settlement and labor-army stages. Volga-operation figures cannot be added to broader Soviet-German stocks. Mortality evidence for 1941–1944 is incomplete and contradictory, and the identity and scale of people later occupying the former autonomous republic are not established here.", "note": "The frozen 1941–1955 bounds and complete eight-trait profile are preserved. The 1955 endpoint marks release from MVD surveillance without property restitution, authorized return or restored autonomy. Forced labor is documented in the narrative while frozen F8=0 remains unchanged and visibly qualified pending any separate Astra High reconciliation. Structured impact remains unassessed.", "placeGloss": "The Volga region, Kazakhstan, Siberia, the Urals and Central Asia are textual orientation only; broader destination references do not define a complete route or settlement roster.", "geometryExplanation": "No origin point, deportation route, receiving settlement or territorial footprint is plotted.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_volga_german_deportation_pohl_2000", "v7_volga_german_deportation_helsinki_watch_1991" ] }, { "id": "mena-iraq-anfal", "name": "Anfal campaign against Iraqi Kurds", "region": "Middle East and North Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1987–1989", "periods": [ { "start": 1987, "end": 1989, "yearLabel": "1987–1989", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Kurdish rural communities and Assyrian and other minorities captured or forcibly relocated during the eight Anfal operations; the source does not establish a complete person-level roster" ], "settlers": [ "The Iraqi Ba'athist state, army and security services carried out the campaign. No distinct incoming settler population is established for this event unit." ], "evidence": "The retained Human Rights Watch report defines eight 1988 Anfal operations, documents their state command structure and describes settlement destruction, detention, disappearance, killing and forced relocation.", "story": "Human Rights Watch describes Anfal as eight Iraqi military operations against Kurdish rural areas from 23 February through 6 September 1988. The first began with the assault on Sergalou-Bergalou; later operations moved through other designated areas, and the Final Anfal targeted Badinan before the government announced an amnesty on 6 September.\n\nThe operations sat inside a wider command period. Ali Hassan al-Majid held special powers over northern Iraq from 29 March 1987 through 23 April 1989. The report identifies regular army corps, security and military-intelligence agencies, the Ba'ath Party, the Popular Army and pro-government Kurdish militia as parts of the state structure used to carry out the campaign and process captured civilians.\n\nThe report describes attacks on settlements, chemical attacks, destruction and looting, followed by capture, transport, detention and separation of villagers. Many detainees disappeared or were executed; other survivors were forcibly relocated and forbidden to return to their villages. The stages followed a broadly recurring pattern, but the evidence does not establish one universal sequence for every household or person.\n\nThe report gives separate estimates for disappearances, destroyed villages, detainees, displaced villagers, deaths in particular chemical attacks, deaths during Anfal and deaths after detention or forced displacement. These quantities describe different populations, places, outcomes and periods. They are not added here, and the evidence does not establish a deduplicated total for the event.\n\nHalabja is part of the report's broader account of genocide against Iraqi Kurds, but the report expressly says that the city was not technically part of Anfal. Its deaths are excluded from the Anfal figures. The longer Arabization of Kirkuk and Khanaqin is also kept separate, as are earlier and later campaigns outside the eight operations.", "contested": "The 1987–1989 special-powers frame is wider than the eight operations. Halabja and its deaths are outside the technical Anfal unit, and Kirkuk Arabization remains a separate case. The report's disappearance, village, detention, displacement, attack-death and later-mortality quantities are not commensurate and cannot be combined into a deduplicated event total.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Structured impact remains null. Named places and facilities provide textual context only; no geometry, route, universal household sequence, completed return or property restoration is inferred.", "placeGloss": "Northern Iraqi Kurdistan, named operational areas, holding facilities and relocation sites provide textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "The source does not establish a single exact origin, destination, route, district polygon or complete spatial representation for the affected population.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_iraq_anfal_hrw_1993" ] }, { "id": "prospective-somalia-mogadishu-urban-evictions-2012-2013", "name": "Mogadishu public-land and settlement evictions and relocation pressure, 2012-2013", "region": "Horn of Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "2012–2013 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 2012, "end": 2013, "yearLabel": "2012–2013 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Internally displaced people and urban poor removed from Mogadishu public buildings, public land, or private property. Displaced families living in informal settlements appear only in the unproven 2013 relocation plan; no complete household roster is available" ], "settlers": [ "Somali government authorities reclaiming public property and private owners reclaiming property. The report generally identifies some returning refugees and diaspora members among owner-evictors but supplies no person-level flight-history crosswalk and does not establish that every owner was a returnee." ], "evidence": "The World Bank directly documents increased authority- and owner-led urban evictions, expressly dates implemented Mogadishu public-building summary evictions to 2012, and separately describes the 2013 relocation announcement as a plan.", "story": "As security and commercial activity increased in Somalia’s cities, competition over urban land intensified. The World Bank reports that authorities evicted internally displaced people from public buildings and land, while private owners removed them from private property. Those affected often received little notice and no alternative place to go.\n\nIn Mogadishu, the report expressly dates one implemented episode to 2012. The government began reclaiming public buildings, and many internally displaced people and urban poor were summarily evicted. The source does not give an implemented-removal total, identify every household, or trace where those removed went.\n\nThe report also describes a number of refugees and diaspora members returning to Somalia and evicting internally displaced people from their properties as land values and private activity rose. This is a general account of some returning owners. It does not establish that every private owner was a returnee, and it does not connect any particular evictor to a refugee history.\n\nOn 20 January 2013, the Ministry of Interior and National Security announced a plan to relocate displaced families from settlements across Mogadishu. A task force and six-step plan contemplated locations outside the city by 20 August 2013. These details show planned relocation pressure and a risk of forced movement; they do not prove that every proposed relocation occurred or establish a completed destination outcome.\n\nThis case is limited to the implemented 2012 public-building removals and directly documented Mogadishu owner-led evictions; the 2013 plan is included only as pressure and planning. Earlier movements caused by conflict, drought, flood or land loss remain separate, as do later Somalia event units. The source provides no unique-person crosswalk across those movements, so no combined total or deduplicated roster is claimed.", "contested": "The report provides no implemented-removal total, household roster, destination outcome, or unique-person crosswalk. The 2013 plan cannot be treated as completed movement; every private owner cannot be treated as a returnee; and no individual evictor can be assigned a refugee history.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is preserved without interpretation or recoding. Structured impact is null, geometry is unknown, and there is no incoming-flight note. Earlier conflict, drought, flood and land-loss movements and later Somalia units remain separate under the frozen parent rule.", "placeGloss": "Mogadishu is the bounded city context. Public buildings, public land, informal settlements, private property, and contemplated locations outside the city are textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "The source does not establish exact buildings, settlement polygons, parcel boundaries, routes, destination sites, or a complete implemented-movement geography.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_mogadishu_urban_evictions_world_bank_2014" ] }, { "id": "modern-south-sudan-civil-war-displacement", "name": "South Sudan civil war and mass displacement", "region": "Northeastern Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "2013–2018", "periods": [ { "start": 2013, "end": 2018, "yearLabel": "2013–2018", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "South Sudanese civilians repeatedly displaced within the country or across borders during the 2013–2018 civil-war window; no complete or deduplicated person-level roster is established" ], "settlers": [ "South Sudanese government and opposition forces drove displacement. No distinct incoming settler population is established for this event unit." ], "evidence": "The retained UNHCR-commissioned report directly documents the 2013 escalation, the 2015–2016 agreement sequence, abuses by government and opposition forces, repeated displacement and separately dated mortality and later displacement figures.", "story": "The report traces the civil war from South Sudan's post-independence political crisis. President Salva Kiir removed Vice-President Riek Machar in July 2013; over the following months, political conflict became armed struggle between government and opposition forces and had spread across many parts of the country by the end of 2013.\n\nThe parties signed the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan in 2015, and a transitional government followed. Machar returned as vice-president in 2016, but violence continued despite a permanent-ceasefire agreement. This case preserves the frozen 2013–2018 window; it does not claim that conflict or displacement ended in 2018.\n\nThe report describes serious violations by government and opposition forces. Civilians were killed on the basis of ethnicity or perceived political loyalty; women and girls were abducted and raped; hospitals, schools, civilian property and livelihoods were destroyed or looted; humanitarian personnel were attacked; and combatants obstructed assistance. These documented forms of conduct do not establish that every affected person experienced the same sequence.\n\nMany internally displaced people fled more than once as fighting shifted across the country. Some civilians who reached United Nations Protection of Civilians sites still faced insecurity. The report does not provide a person-level crosswalk, a universal itinerary or a complete set of origins and destinations, so this case adopts no route or geometry.\n\nThe report separately cites a modeled estimate of 383,000 conflict-caused deaths from December 2013 through April 2018, including about 190,000 people killed. These are nested mortality measures, not two additive totals and not displacement counts. The report also gives later 2021–2022 IDP and refugee stocks; those figures postdate the frozen window and remain aftermath context. None of these quantities is adopted as structured impact or as a deduplicated event-wide total.", "contested": "The frozen event ends in 2018, but the source describes continuing violence and later displacement. The 383,000 conflict-caused death estimate includes about 190,000 killed and is not added to it; neither is a displacement count. Later 2021–2022 IDP/refugee stocks remain aftermath context and are not combined with each other or with the frozen event.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding, including F6 coverage 0.9038663149. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "South Sudan and neighboring asylum countries provide textual orientation only; named countries do not constitute a complete route set.", "geometryExplanation": "The report describes nationwide, repeated internal and cross-border movement without a person-level crosswalk or complete origin, destination and route set.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_south_sudan_civil_war_unhcr_2023" ] }, { "id": "prospective-nk-april-offensive-azerbaijani-displacement-1994", "name": "Late-April 1994 Karabakh Armenian front-line displacement", "region": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1994 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1994, "end": 1994, "yearLabel": "1994 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Azerbaijani civilians making a first departure from the named front-line tract because of the late-April 1994 offensive; the reported approximately 50,000 flow overlaps earlier displacement and is not a complete person or household roster" ], "settlers": [ "Karabakh Armenian forces conducted the offensive, with support from Republic of Armenia forces as reported by Human Rights Watch. No incoming settler population is established for this event unit." ], "evidence": "The retained Human Rights Watch report directly identifies the late-April 1994 front, advancing forces and resulting refugee flow, and expressly warns that the reported displaced group included people who had fled earlier offensives.", "story": "Human Rights Watch reports that heavy fighting near Agdam and Mardakert in mid-April 1994 developed into a Karabakh Armenian offensive by the beginning of May. The report says Karabakh Armenian forces, with support from forces of the Republic of Armenia, advanced north along the Agdam-Barda road and into Terter and Geranboi.\n\nThe report says this fighting created approximately 50,000 Azerbaijani displaced persons. It immediately warns that some of those people had fled earlier offensives. The figure is therefore an overlapping, nonunique report of the refugee flow, not a household count, a roster of first departures, or a structured impact total.\n\nHuman Rights Watch also records later interviews with people displaced by the April-May offensive who reported indiscriminate fire and hostage-taking. The report says still-burning villages were visible from the interview location. This evidence supports coercive flight and limited property-damage context, but it does not establish what happened in every village or supply a property-damage denominator.\n\nThis case is limited to a first departure from the named front-line tract caused by the late-April 1994 offensive. People already displaced from the same home during the 1993 surrounding-district offensives and people making onward movements are excluded. The source provides no unique-person crosswalk, complete settlement or household roster, exact destinations, return history, or durability finding for this episode.\n\nThe 1993 offensives, Operation Ring in 1991, the 1992 Azerbaijani counteroffensive in Mardakert and Geranboi, the Lachin displacement, Kirovabad, Baku and Sumgait violence, and the parent reciprocal-expulsions totals remain separate event units. Their estimates are not combined with the late-April 1994 report.", "contested": "The approximately 50,000 estimate is overlapping and nonunique. The report supplies no complete settlement or household roster, day-level chronology, unique first-departure crosswalk, exact destinations, return history, property-damage denominator, governing-law change, or bounded livelihood evidence for this episode.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding or interpretation, including insufficient-evidence and structural-not-applicable statuses. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "The Agdam-Barda road and the Terter and Geranboi fronts provide textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "The report names a front and direction of advance but does not establish a complete origin set, destination set, route, or polygon for the displaced population.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_nk_april_offensive_hrw_1994" ] }, { "id": "prospective-somalia-conflict-1991-1995", "name": "Somalia state-collapse and inter- and intra-clan conflict displacement, 1991-1995", "region": "Horn of Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1991–1995", "periods": [ { "start": 1991, "end": 1995, "yearLabel": "1991–1995", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Somali civilians internally displaced during the 1991–1995 state-collapse and inter-/intra-clan conflict wave; no complete or deduplicated person-level roster is established" ], "settlers": [ "Armed clan factions and militias drove conflict and displacement. No distinct incoming settler population is established for this event unit." ], "evidence": "The retained World Bank report directly labels the 1991–1995 wave, reports the 1992 peak stock, and describes conflict, threat, clan targeting and land-loss mechanisms with explicit mixed-cause and count limits.", "story": "The World Bank report separates a 1991–1995 state-collapse and inter- and intra-clan conflict wave from earlier and later phases. It reports approximately two million people internally displaced at the 1992 height and says drought and famine compounded the wave. Movements whose documented immediate trigger is drought or famine remain outside this conflict unit, with conflict retained only as a secondary factor. The two-million figure is a peak stock, not an additive flow or a unique-person event total.\n\nConflict and threatened violence drove displacement, while forcible land acquisition could remove assets and livelihoods and prompt departure. Clan alignment could provide protection or expose people to abuse. The report gives examples of ex-regime-aligned Darod fleeing south toward the Juba Valley and Kismayo and minority groups losing assets after targeting by dominant clans; these examples do not establish one universal route or experience.\n\nThe report also describes early-civil-war appropriation of plantations, real estate and river-valley farming land by militarily stronger clans. Agricultural and minority groups could be displaced and lose access to livelihoods. This supports a land-loss mechanism but does not provide a parcel list, household denominator, complete perpetrator roster or event-wide property outcome.\n\nSomali displacement mixed direct conflict, threat, land loss, drought, famine and other movements, sometimes across more than one episode. Later December-2013 IDP and regional refugee stocks, returnees and repeated-movement cautions are separate context. They are not combined with the 1992 peak, and no refugee, IDP or repeated movement count is adopted as structured impact.\n\nThe report separately labels late-1980s displacement and the 1995–2000, 2000–2005, 2005–2009, 2009–2011 and 2011–2014 phases. Because the 1991–1995 and 1995–2000 roster labels overlap at 1995 without a month/day division, this case preserves the frozen outer boundary without assigning every 1995 movement. The Mogadishu 2005–2009 conflict, the contemporaneous Puntland–Somaliland front, and the 2012–2013 eviction case remain distinct.", "contested": "Approximately two million internally displaced at the 1992 height is a peak stock, not a cumulative flow, refugee count or unique-person total. Drought and famine compounded the wave. The source’s 1991–1995 and 1995–2000 labels overlap at 1995 without a finer dividing date.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Low-coverage and partial traits remain visibly uncertain; latent values are not historical findings. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "Mogadishu, the Juba Valley, Kismayo and river-valley areas provide textual orientation only; examples do not constitute a complete route or event footprint.", "geometryExplanation": "The report gives national phase labels and selected movement examples but no complete origin set, destination set, person-level crosswalk, route or polygon.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_somalia_conflict_1991_1995_world_bank_2014" ] }, { "id": "prospective-second-congo-war-displacement-1998-2003", "name": "Second Congo War internal displacement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, August 1998–June 2003", "region": "Central Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1998–2003 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1998, "end": 2003, "yearLabel": "1998–2003 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Congolese civilians internally displaced by fighting, insecurity, attacks and coercive territorial or resource control during August 1998–30 June 2003; no complete or deduplicated person-level roster is established" ], "settlers": [ "Congolese and foreign state forces, rebel movements and irregular armed groups drove or participated in the conflict. No distinct incoming settler population is established for this event unit." ], "evidence": "The retained OHCHR Mapping Report directly establishes the August 1998 opening, the 30 June 2003 transition boundary, named actor classes, widespread civilian victimization, force-based territorial and resource control, and forced-displacement practices.", "story": "The OHCHR Mapping Report places the opening of the Second Congo War in August 1998. It describes Congolese government forces fighting with Zimbabwean, Angolan and Namibian forces against Rwandan and Ugandan forces, the Rassemblement congolais pour la démocratie and multiple irregular armed groups. This case begins with that August 1998 war phase and excludes the First Congo War.\n\nThe report says fighting and serious violations continued after the 1999 Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement. Rwandan and Ugandan withdrawals began after separate 2002 agreements. Its final period covers January 2001 through June 2003, when continued violence accompanied negotiations leading to the transition that began on 30 June 2003. That transition date closes this case; it does not establish that every displacement ended or that every displaced person returned.\n\nThe report explains that natural-resource exploitation became increasingly important during the second war, both as war finance and as a source of personal enrichment. Armed actors established and maintained control by force. Fighting for mines, customs posts and other valuable places directly targeted civilians or caught them in crossfire.\n\nThe report identifies massacres, rape, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, and forced displacement among practices used to seize and hold territory. It also describes villages displaced for mineral or timber exploitation and fighting around Lulingu that brought civilian massacres, displacement and looting. These examples establish coercive movement mechanisms without proving that every community experienced the same sequence.\n\nThe retained passages do not supply a nonduplicated event-wide displacement total, a complete household roster, forced-versus-flight shares, or a person-level crosswalk for repeated movement. Conflict deaths are not displacement counts, and the source does not provide a direct-versus-indirect mortality decomposition for this bounded event. No stock is treated as a flow or unique-person total. Post-June-2003 ADF, M23/North Kivu, renewed Ituri, Ruzizi and other eastern-DRC units remain separate.", "contested": "The report is a mapping exercise rather than a displaced-person census. It does not supply a nonduplicated event-wide displacement total, forced-versus-flight shares, a direct-versus-indirect mortality accounting, return timing, or person-level crosswalks to later eastern-DRC episodes. Stocks, flows, repeated movements and mortality remain nonadditive and unadopted.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding or interpretation, including insufficient-evidence and structural-not-applicable statuses. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "The Democratic Republic of the Congo and named provinces, towns, villages, mines and fronts provide textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "The report names widespread conflict areas and local displacement examples but does not establish a complete origin set, destination set, route, or polygon for the displaced population.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_second_congo_war_ohchr_2010" ] }, { "id": "prospective-japanese-occupied-hong-kong-forced-repatriation-and-depopulation-1941-1945", "name": "Japanese occupation-government forced repatriation and depopulation of Hong Kong, December 1941–August 1945", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "local", "dates": "1941–1945 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1941, "end": 1945, "yearLabel": "1941–1945 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Hong Kong residents induced or compelled to leave during Japanese occupation, including people arrested or denied secure residence status; voluntary, induced and forced shares are unresolved" ], "settlers": [ "Japanese occupation authorities, military police and administrative bodies implemented population-reduction measures. No distinct incoming settler population is established for this event unit." ], "evidence": "The complete Academy body directly documents the occupation-government policy, its shift from inducement to arrest and forced deportation, residence controls, route hardship, abandonment, killings and the approximate August 1945 population. Lopes independently anchors the occupation boundary and keeps neutral Macau distinct.", "story": "Japanese forces occupied Hong Kong in December 1941. The Academy of Chinese Studies says the occupation government soon adopted a repatriation policy amid food and supply shortages, with a stated goal of reducing a population of about 1.6 million to about 500,000. Those figures describe a policy goal and a starting population; they are not an observed count of people forcibly removed.\n\nThe policy changed over time. At first, the occupation government offered inducements, including rice, to people who left for mainland China. After this approach failed to meet the government's goal, the source says that from mid-1942 the authorities used Kempeitai street arrests and forced deportation. Later resident certificates tied permission to remain to employment and other categories. Induced departure, voluntary response to material pressure, arbitrary arrest and forced deportation therefore remain distinct rather than being collapsed into one cohort.\n\nThe Academy account describes people sent toward mainland China who faced hunger, disease and banditry. It also records abandonment on deserted islands or at sea and direct killing of older, sick or disabled people. Its Beaufort Island, May 1942 maritime and December 1944 North Point accounts are specific incidents. They show coercive and lethal mechanisms but do not supply a complete incident roster or an event-wide total.\n\nThe same account says about 600,000 people remained in Hong Kong by August 1945. It attributes the population fall to several processes, including the repatriation policy, deteriorating conditions, sickness, starvation and wartime deaths. The difference between pre-occupation and end-of-occupation population estimates cannot be treated as an exact forced-removal total, because voluntary and coerced departures, deaths, return, and other population change are not reconciled.\n\nLopes independently fixes the end of British Hong Kong's neutrality and formal Japanese occupation to December 1941 and records an early-1942 exodus from Hong Kong, including movement toward Macau. Macau remained a neutral Portuguese-administered receiving territory. Its inward refugee reception and internal administration are context only and remain outside this occupied-Hong Kong outward-depopulation case.\n\nThe public account preserves the source limits. It does not infer a complete route register, individual property losses, a death total, or the share of all departures that was voluntary, induced or forced. The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding; structured impact remains null, geometry unknown, origins and targets empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "contested": "The sources do not separate every voluntary departure from material inducement or forced expulsion, reconcile incident and mortality totals, provide a complete route register, or document individual property losses. Approximate population figures are not an exact removed-person total.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding or interpretation. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "Japanese-occupied Hong Kong is the event territory; mainland destinations, islands and coastal waters are textual context. Neutral Macau is an excluded receiving history.", "geometryExplanation": "The sources name Hong Kong, mainland China, some piers, islands, coastal waters and Macau context, but do not establish a complete origin, destination, route or polygon for affected people.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_hong_kong_forced_repatriation_academy" ] }, { "id": "prospective-august-2008-south-ossetia-conflict-and-immediate-aftermath-displacement", "name": "August 2008 South Ossetia war, conflict flight, and post-ceasefire forced displacement and destruction", "region": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "2008 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 2008, "end": 2008, "yearLabel": "2008 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Civilians who fled from areas in and near South Ossetia, including people who fled danger and insecurity and ethnic Georgians subjected to documented forced displacement. Reported flight and non-return quantities remain distinct and nonadditive." ], "settlers": [ "Georgian, Russian and South Ossetian forces and irregular armed groups drove conflict and coercion. No distinct incoming settler population is established." ], "evidence": "IIFFMCG Volume I directly supports the conflict dates, actors, conflict flight, post-ceasefire forced displacement, settlement destruction, reported non-return, and the source limits on cohort attribution.", "story": "The Mission dates the large-scale conflict to the night of 7–8 August 2008. Georgian forces attacked Tskhinvali and surrounding areas; Russian forces countered inside Georgia, while South Ossetian forces and irregular armed groups also operated. After five days, the parties negotiated the 12 August ceasefire. This case ends the hostilities there and includes only coercive acts in their immediate 2008 aftermath.\n\nThe report records civilian flight caused by danger and insecurity, alongside documented forced displacement. It describes looting and destruction of ethnic Georgian settlements during and after the fighting, ill-treatment and failures to stop abuses. These findings support conflict flight and post-ceasefire coercion without assigning every act to one actor or every displaced person to one mechanism.\n\nThe report says roughly 135,000 people fled, mostly from areas in and near South Ossetia, with most going elsewhere in Georgia and a significant number to Russia. It separately reports more than 35,000 not expected to return soon because of insecurity or destroyed homes and property. These are overlapping reported stocks or subsets, not additive flows or a deduplicated event total.\n\nVolume I does not provide a person-level crosswalk among civilian identity, destination, displacement mechanism and return outcome. The report-wide flight and non-return figures must not be assigned wholesale to a named ethnic cohort. Continuing non-return is an outcome of this bounded 2008 episode, not continuing new displacement.\n\nThe 1991–1992 South Ossetia conflict, its earlier IDPs and claims, Abkhazia, and the upper Kodori Valley are outside this case. Named places provide textual orientation only and do not establish a complete origin set, destination set, route, point, or polygon.", "contested": "The source does not reconcile cohorts, assign every act, supply a final day for all immediate-aftermath coercion, or resolve person-level return and property outcomes.", "note": "Frozen traits are unchanged; geometry is unknown, structured impact null, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "South Ossetia, Tskhinvali and adjacent Georgian territory are textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "The evidence does not establish complete origins, destinations, routes or a polygon.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_south_ossetia_2008_iiffmcg_2009" ] }, { "id": "prospective-pakistani-army-and-auxiliary-displacement-in-east-pakistan-march-december-1971", "name": "Pakistani army and auxiliary violence and displacement in East Pakistan, March–December 1971", "region": "South Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "25 March–16 December 1971 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1971, "end": 1971, "yearLabel": "25 March–16 December 1971 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Bengali civilians in East Pakistan, especially Hindus, Awami League supporters, students, and residents of attacked towns and villages; refugees who fled to India. Refugee, internal-displacement, and death figures remain distinct and nonadditive." ], "settlers": [ "The Pakistani army and associated auxiliary forces were the principal coercive agents. No distinct incoming settler population is established." ], "evidence": "UNHCR chapter 3 and the approved ICJ pages support the bounded chronology, organized repression, town and village depopulation, cross-border refugee exodus, targeted groups, and the separation of death and displacement evidence without a reconciled event-wide total.", "story": "On 25 March 1971, Pakistan's armed forces began a counterinsurgency campaign in East Pakistan after constitutional negotiations collapsed. UNHCR describes wholesale attacks on suspected Awami League supporters and widespread repression. The International Commission of Jurists separately records continuing punitive military measures, destruction, and violence by the Pakistan army and auxiliary forces. This case ends with the Pakistani army's surrender at Dhaka on 16 December 1971.\n\nMilitary and auxiliary violence included killings, severe ill-treatment, destruction of homes and villages, and intimidation. The ICJ report describes depopulated towns, destroyed villages, persistent fear, and refugees fleeing in millions toward the Indian border. These passages support forced flight within East Pakistan and across the border, but they do not supply a complete internal-displacement count, route register, or person-level attribution.\n\nUNHCR reports that nearly one million refugees had entered India within a month, almost four million by the end of May, and an Indian-government figure supplied to the United Nations of 10 million by the end of 1971. These are successive source-reported cumulative refugee figures, not additive flows, a unique-person crosswalk, or a count attributable in every instance to one perpetrator or mechanism.\n\nDeaths remain separate from displacement. UNHCR describes thousands of civilian deaths after the crackdown. The approved ICJ pages describe killing, arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of Awami League members, students and Hindus, but do not furnish a reconciled event-wide death total. This packet adopts no death estimate and adds none to any refugee or internal-displacement figure.\n\nIndian military intervention and Bengali resistance form part of the war context without replacing the Pakistani army and associated auxiliaries as this case's coercive agents. The mass Bengali and Hindu return after surrender is an outcome reversal outside this removal unit, and post-surrender anti-Bihari displacement and dispossession is a separate sibling. Named places orient the narrative only; they do not establish a complete origin set, destination set, route, point, or polygon.", "contested": "The sources do not reconcile internal and cross-border cohorts, yield a nonduplicative displaced-person total, identify every perpetrator or victim, or provide complete routes, property losses, displacement durations, or a reliable death total.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "East Pakistan/Bangladesh, Dhaka, India, and named towns and villages are textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "The approved passages do not establish complete origins, destinations, routes, points, or polygons for affected people.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_east_pakistan_1971_icj_1972" ] }, { "id": "prospective-baltic-june-1941-tristate-deportation", "name": "Coordinated Soviet deportation from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, 13-14 June 1941", "region": "Europe / Russia and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1941 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1941, "end": 1941, "yearLabel": "1941 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "People in Soviet-occupied Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania classified by Soviet authorities as anti-Soviet, criminal or socially dangerous and specified family members removed in the coordinated 13–14 June 1941 operation; no complete or deduplicated tri-state person roster is established" ], "settlers": [ "USSR and republican security organs, operational groups and participating local officials carried out the removals. No distinct incoming settler population is established for this event unit." ], "evidence": "The approved state-archive bodies establish tri-state planning, the 13–14 June boundary, household roundup, search, restricted baggage, property handling, family separation, rail embarkation and Latvia-specific count distinctions. The commission supplies a separate approximate Estonia count.", "story": "During the night of 13 June and on 14 June 1941, Soviet security organs carried out a coordinated deportation operation in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The Latvian State Archive account links the three republics to shared central planning and describes republican security organs, operational groups and local officials preparing files, transport and routes for people classified by Soviet authorities as anti-Soviet, criminal or socially dangerous and for specified family members.\n\nThe Serov instructions prescribed how operational groups were to use prepared household files and routes, gather a family, check its members, search people and premises, limit baggage, list property and move the household to a railway embarkation point. The Latvian account documents similar searches, seizures and transport in implementation. A prescribed procedure does not establish that every household experienced every step identically.\n\nThe instructions distinguished people designated for arrest and camp custody from relatives assigned to special settlement. Separation was to occur without advance notice, and the Latvian account describes family heads and other family members assigned to different train groups. These were different custody routes within one household operation, not separate household removals, and the sources do not establish one destination or outcome for every person.\n\nThe Latvian account preserves competing Latvia-specific figures and cohort definitions. A contemporary report listed 5,625 arrested and 9,546 administratively deported, 15,171 people in all; the same account records other later totals, including a 2001 State Archives update of 15,424 people, 5,259 of them arrested. The figures are not averaged or generalized. The Estonian Commission separately describes almost 10,000 men, women and children removed from Estonia in June 1941. The approved locators provide no Lithuania-specific total, so no combined tri-state total is inferred.\n\nThe operation removed people from their homes and separated many families into camp and special-settlement custody. Planned regions and routes do not establish an actual destination distribution for all deportees, and the approved passages do not establish an operation-wide forced-labor assignment. Later arrests, later deportations, camp transfers and post-1944 operations remain separate historical units. The complete frozen profile is preserved; geometry remains unknown, structured impact remains null and no incoming-flight note is added.", "contested": "The instructions are procedural rather than a complete implementation roster. Latvia figures differ by source and cohort; Estonia's count is approximate; no approved Lithuania count is available. Country totals are not added. Actual destinations, repeat or secondary transfers, duration, returns, mortality and operation-wide forced-labor assignments remain unresolved.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding or interpretation. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are the origin republics named by the operation. Camps, special settlements and the Soviet interior remain textual custody and destination context only.", "geometryExplanation": "The sources name three origin republics and discuss planned or designated custody routes and settlement regions, but do not establish a complete person-level origin, destination, route or polygon.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_baltic_june_1941_latvian_state_archive" ] }, { "id": "new-zealand-waikato-taranaki-musket-wars", "name": "Waikato invasions of Taranaki and forced southward movement, 1826–1834", "region": "Aotearoa New Zealand", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1826–1834 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1826, "end": 1834, "yearLabel": "1826–1834 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Taranaki tribal groups that Te Ara says were forced south by the 1826 invasion; Te Āti Awa communities and Taranaki defenders in the later named pā sequence. The source gives no complete identity list, destination roster or population total." ], "settlers": [ "Waikato forces, including war parties led by Te Wherowhero in the 1830s. The approved source does not establish a distinct incoming settler population for this event unit." ], "evidence": "The approved Te Ara page 4 passages establish the 1826 Waikato invasion and forced movement south, the 1831–32 Pukerangiora pā capture, later named Taranaki pā fighting, resistance at Ngāmotu and Te Namu, and the 1834 Te Ruaki endpoint.", "story": "In 1826 Waikato forces invaded Taranaki. Te Ara states that the invasion forced a number of tribal groups south. The approved passage does not identify every group, destination or person, and it gives no removed-population total.\n\nTe Ara next describes a renewed Taranaki sequence in 1831–32 under Te Wherowhero. Waikato captured Pukerangiora pā; later fighting involved Ngāmotu and Mikotahi near present-day New Plymouth and Te Namu on the Taranaki coast. Resistance by Te Āti Awa and Taranaki defenders stopped Waikato at Ngāmotu and Te Namu. Capture here refers to the taking of a pā, not an independently supported count or claim of captive people.\n\nThe approved sequence ends with the Waikato attack on Te Ruaki in southern Taranaki in 1834. This endpoint does not turn every conflict, raid or population movement in the wider Musket Wars into part of the case.\n\nThe case therefore records a bounded invasion sequence, the source’s explicit 1826 forced movement south, later pā capture and attack, and armed resistance. It does not infer further migration from the later fighting, add casualties or captives, generalize a removal total, or claim a settled postwar land succession. The 1821 Waikato–Ngāti Toa fighting, Waikato campaigns outside Taranaki, other iwi-led Musket War sequences and the later New Zealand Wars remain separate.", "contested": "The source does not establish complete displaced identities or destinations, a generalized removed count, casualty or captive totals, tract-level postwar land succession, formal legal machinery, labor outcomes or demographic durability. Conflict, pā capture, forced movement and captivity are not treated as interchangeable claims.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding or interpretation. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "Pukerangiora, Ngāmotu, Mikotahi, Te Namu and Te Ruaki are named places within the bounded Taranaki sequence. They do not authorize inferred routes or geometry.", "geometryExplanation": "The source names Taranaki locations and southward movement but does not establish a complete group-level origin, destination, route or polygon.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_waikato_taranaki_te_ara_2017" ] }, { "id": "prospective-lao-hmong-detention-and-forced-return-2006-2009", "name": "Detention and forced return of the 158 recognized Nong Khai Lao Hmong refugees, 17 November 2006–28 December 2009", "region": "Southeast Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "local", "dates": "17 November 2006–28 December 2009 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 2006, "end": 2009, "yearLabel": "17 November 2006–28 December 2009 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "The recognized Nong Khai Lao Hmong refugee cohort: originally 147 people, increasing to 158 through births during detention. The figures are successive, not additive; children are members of the 158-person cohort, and the 158 are nested within the wider roughly 4,000-person two-site return." ], "settlers": [ "Thai immigration, security and government authorities carried out the roundup, detention and return; the Lao People's Democratic Republic was the receiving state. No incoming settler population is established." ], "evidence": "The approved UNHCR paragraphs trace the same recognized cohort from the 2006 Bangkok roundup and Nong Khai transfer through detention and the 28 December 2009 forced return, while the 29 December follow-up records UNHCR's request for access and disclosure of assurances.", "story": "On 17 November 2006, Thai authorities rounded up 147 Lao Hmong whom UNHCR had recognized as refugees in Bangkok for deportation. They were transferred to immigration custody in Nong Khai on 8 December and remained detained there for about three years in two cells.\n\nBirths during detention increased this same cohort from 147 to 158 people. The later figure does not describe a second group, and children within the cohort are not an additional count. UNHCR reported that the United States, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands had offered resettlement, but the opened paragraphs do not identify individual offers or outcomes.\n\nThailand forced the recognized Nong Khai group across the border to Laos on 28 December 2009. On 29 December, UNHCR sought access to people returned the previous day and asked Thailand to disclose the assurances it had received from Laos and the steps taken to ensure those commitments. The source does not establish where members of this cohort were taken in Laos, whether access was later granted, or their protection outcomes.\n\nThe frozen parent ruling places the 158 recognized refugees within a roughly 4,000-person return from two sites on 28 December. The figures overlap and are not added. This case excludes the separate Ban Huay Nam Khao cohort and does not transfer characteristics between the Thailand detention cohort, the wider repatriation operation, and Laos-side reception or access claims.\n\nEarlier Hmong flight after 1975 and the mixed 1980–1996 return program are outside this event. They supply no identities, origins, destinations, or outcomes for the 158 people. Bangkok, Nong Khai, Thailand and Laos orient the narrative only; they do not establish a complete route, point, polygon, origin set or destination set.", "contested": "The opened record does not provide individual identities, exact birth dates, person-level resettlement offers, a unique crosswalk to the wider two-site return, post-return locations, later UNHCR access, treatment or protection outcomes in Laos.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and the existing no-incoming-flight-note decision is preserved.", "placeGloss": "Bangkok, Nong Khai, Thailand and Laos are textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "The approved passages do not establish complete origins, destinations, routes, points or polygons for the cohort.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_lao_hmong_nong_khai_unhcr_2009" ] }, { "id": "prospective-bosnia-hvo-herceg-bosna-muslim-removal-1993-1994", "name": "HVO/Herceg-Bosna program against Bosnian Muslims", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "mid-January 1993–April 1994 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1993, "end": 1994, "yearLabel": "mid-January 1993–April 1994 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Bosnian Muslim civilians and detainees affected by the HZ(R) H-B/HVO program in claimed territory. The approved synthesis gives no nonduplicative program-wide victim total or complete locality roster." ], "settlers": [ "Political and military leaders of HZ(R) H-B, HVO forces and apparatus, the accused members of the JCE, and certain Croatian leaders as found by the Trial Chamber. This field records responsible actors, not an inferred incoming settler population." ], "evidence": "The approved ICTY Trial Judgment synthesis supports the no-earlier-than-mid-January 1993 onset, staged campaigns in claimed provinces, January 1993–April 1994 program window, actor structure and integrated removal system.", "story": "The ICTY Trial Chamber majority found that a single common criminal purpose used the political and military apparatus of the Croatian Community and later Republic of Herceg-Bosna to establish Croat control by changing the ethnic composition of claimed territory. The judgment records a dissent from the findings about that common criminal purpose.\n\nThe Chamber found that the common criminal plan was established no earlier than mid-January 1993. It linked the plan to HVO efforts to consolidate control over Provinces 3, 8 and 10 under the Vance-Owen Plan and described implementation in stages, beginning with military campaigns in territory treated as Croatian. The evidence did not support an agreement on a common criminal design before mid-January 1993.\n\nFrom the no-earlier-than-mid-January 1993 onset through April 1994, the Chamber described a coordinated system directed against the Muslim population in the claimed territory. It said it was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the political and military leaders in the joint criminal enterprise supported and coordinated field operations to carry out most of the listed crimes. The system's components included removing and detaining civilians; killings and property destruction during attacks; mistreatment and damage during evictions; abusive confinement; widespread use of detainees for labor or as human shields; and removal of released detainees and their families outside Herceg-Bosna territory.\n\nThese are distinct mechanisms, not one interchangeable cohort or count. The cited synthesis does not provide a nonduplicative program-wide victim total, a complete municipality or detention-site roster, or proof that every affected person experienced every component.", "contested": "The Trial Chamber majority finding and recorded dissent are both stated. The synthesis does not enumerate every municipality, detention site, victim, release sequence or property loss and does not show that every affected person experienced every mechanism.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "Provinces 3, 8 and 10 and HZ(R) H-B claimed territory are legal-historical scope descriptions, not inferred geometry.", "geometryExplanation": "The approved synthesis does not establish a complete person-level origin, destination, route or mappable polygon.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_bosnia_hvo_prlic_trial_2013" ] }, { "id": "prospective-somalia-mogadishu-conflict-2005-2009", "name": "Mogadishu-centered conflict displacement, 2005-2009", "region": "Horn of Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "2005–2009 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 2005, "end": 2009, "yearLabel": "2005–2009 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Mogadishu residents and other civilians affected by repeated waves of conflict displacement. About 300,000 leaving in two months in 2007 is a movement figure; about one million affected by end-2009 is a separate affected-population figure. The measures are nonadditive, nonunique, and do not establish nonrepeated movement." ], "settlers": [ "The approved pages establish fighting and insecurity as displacement drivers but do not supply a specific event-wide combatant or command roster. No incoming settler population is established." ], "evidence": "World Bank physical p.14 defines the 2005–2009 Mogadishu-centered boundary and reports the two distinct figures; p.15 supports only general conflict mechanisms; p.20 supplies later context whose 2013–14 figures are excluded.", "story": "The World Bank identifies 2005–2009 as a period when fighting centered on Mogadishu produced waves of people leaving the city. This case begins and ends with that source-defined period and does not extend the unit into the report's earlier or later conflict periods.\n\nIn one two-month period in 2007, the report says about 300,000 people left Mogadishu. It separately reports that about one million people were affected by the end of 2009. The first is a movement figure and the second an affected-population figure; they are not added, treated as unique people, or used to infer that no one moved more than once.\n\nThe report's general conflict section explains that security concerns caused by fighting were a dominant driver of displacement and that people fled direct exposure to violence or threats of violence. It also discusses land acquisition and asset loss elsewhere in Somalia. Those general mechanisms do not establish that every person in this Mogadishu unit experienced each mechanism, nor do they provide an event-specific combatant, command, bombardment, property-loss, labor, or livelihood roster.\n\nA later section identifies Mogadishu as a major hosting and movement center for displaced people in south-central Somalia. Its December 2013 and April 2014 figures describe a later current snapshot and are excluded from the 2005–2009 event counts. The later hosting discussion does not identify destinations, duration, return, or outcomes for people counted in the earlier waves.\n\nThe Somalia 1991–1995 conflict, the 2000–2005 period, the 2009–2011 and 2011–2014 periods, and the contemporaneous Puntland–Somaliland front remain separate units. Mogadishu is textual orientation only; the approved pages do not establish complete origins, destinations, routes, points, or polygons.", "contested": "The source does not reconcile movements with affected persons, enumerate unique people or repeat movers, assign every mechanism to each person, or provide a complete actor, episode, destination, duration, property-loss, return, labor or livelihood record.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "Mogadishu and Somalia are textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "The approved passages do not establish complete origins, destinations, routes, points or polygons for affected people.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_mogadishu_conflict_2005_2009_world_bank_2014" ] }, { "id": "prospective-croatia-sao-rsk-non-serb-removal-1991-1995", "name": "SAO Krajina/RSK removal of Croats and other non-Serbs", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1991–1995 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1991, "end": 1995, "yearLabel": "1991–1995 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Croats and other non-Serb residents removed from SAO Krajina and later RSK-controlled territory in Croatia. No complete nonduplicative victim total is claimed." ], "settlers": [ "SAO Krajina and later RSK leadership, government, MUP/police and Territorial Defence forces, with JNA cooperation as identified by the Trial Chamber. This field records responsible actors, not an inferred incoming settler population." ], "evidence": "The approved Martić judgment passages support the institutional sequence, August 1991 onset, removal purpose, actor structure, distinct coercive mechanisms and pervasive coercion through 1995.", "story": "The ICTY Trial Chamber described the institutional sequence from SAO Krajina to the Republic of Serbian Krajina in Croatian territory. It identified the leadership, government, police and Territorial Defence structures involved, together with cooperation by the Yugoslav People’s Army.\n\nThe Chamber found a common purpose to create an ethnically Serb territory through the removal of Croats and other non-Serbs. The approved passages place the onset at least by the August 1991 Kijevo attack and ultimatum, follow the early attack phase through early 1992, and describe pervasive coercion in RSK territory from 1992 through 1995.\n\nThe cited findings describe distinct means: armed attacks and killing, intimidation and violence, detention, property crimes, direct police deportation, organized bus transport under coercive conditions, and opposition to refugee return. These findings concern residents removed from SAO Krajina and later RSK-controlled territory in Croatia.\n\nThe passages do not supply a complete, nonduplicative victim denominator or show that every affected person experienced every mechanism. They also do not authorize adding expulsion, flight, detention, destruction or killing cohorts into one total.", "contested": "The synthesis does not provide a complete victim denominator or operation-wide labor regime and does not show that every affected person experienced every mechanism.", "note": "Frozen profile preserved; structured impact null; geometry unknown; no incoming-flight note.", "placeGloss": "SAO Krajina and RSK-controlled Croatian territory are scope descriptions, not inferred geometry.", "geometryExplanation": "The approved passages do not establish a complete person-level origin, destination, route or polygon.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_croatia_sao_rsk_martic_trial_2007" ] }, { "id": "prospective-south-ossetia-conflict-displacement-1991-1992", "name": "Georgian and Ossetian displacement during the South Ossetia conflict, 1991–1992", "region": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1991–1992 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1991, "end": 1992, "yearLabel": "1991–1992 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Ethnic Ossetians displaced from Georgia outside South Ossetia and ethnic Georgians displaced from South Ossetia to the rest of Georgia during and after the first conflict. The approximately 60,000 and perhaps 10,000 estimates describe distinct directional cohorts and are not added." ], "settlers": [ "Georgian forces and South Ossetian separatist forces were the conflict parties named by the approved IIFFMCG passage. No distinct incoming settler population is established, and the approved locators do not provide a complete perpetrator roster or event-wide expulsion attribution." ], "evidence": "IIFFMCG printed pp.13–14 (physical pp.14–15) support the 1991–1992 conflict and June 1992 Sochi/JPKF break. Crisis Group report p.3 (physical p.7) supports the distinct cohort estimates and later property/registration statuses.", "story": "The IIFFMCG report places fighting between Georgian forces and separatist forces in South Ossetia in 1991–1992. It says the fighting ended with Georgia losing control of much of the territory. The approved passage supports that conflict frame and the two-year boundary, but it does not supply a day-level onset, a complete actor roster, or settlement-level departure dates.\n\nThe report then records a June 1992 agreement at Sochi between Eduard Shevardnadze and Boris Yeltsin. It says the agreement established a Joint Peacekeeping Force for South Ossetia with Russian, Georgian and Ossetian battalions under a Russian commander. This institutional break closes the conflict-displacement unit; it does not prove that everyone returned or that property claims were resolved.\n\nCrisis Group separately reports some 60,000 Ossetians displaced from Georgia outside South Ossetia beginning in the early 1990s, and perhaps 10,000 ethnic Georgians displaced from South Ossetia to the rest of Georgia after the first conflict. These are different ethnic, origin and direction estimates. They are approximate, potentially overlapping with later status records, and are not added into an event-wide total.\n\nThe same Crisis Group page says many among the reported Ossetian displacement population had not regained property rights or received compensation by 2010. Its footnote separately reports 12,500 people from this first wave still registered as refugees in North Ossetia and 3,000 in South Ossetia. These are later registration stocks and property outcomes, not new 1991–1992 flows, a deduplicated nonreturn total, or proof of return status for everyone else.\n\nThe next part of the Crisis Group page turns to displacement caused by the August 2008 war. Those 2008 flight, return, nonreturn and destruction cohorts belong to the separate 2008 case and are excluded here. Named territories provide textual orientation only; the approved passages do not establish complete origins, destinations, routes, points, polygons, expulsion attribution, or person-level return outcomes.", "contested": "The approved passages do not provide settlement-level departure dates, a nonduplicative person roster or total, complete expulsion or perpetrator attribution, complete destinations, or resolved person-level return, property and compensation outcomes. Later stocks and first-conflict estimates may overlap and are not added.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "South Ossetia, the rest of Georgia and North Ossetia are textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "The approved passages do not establish complete origins, destinations, routes, points or polygons for either cohort.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_south_ossetia_1991_1992_iiffmcg_2009", "v7_south_ossetia_1991_1992_icg_2010" ] }, { "id": "prospective-lithuania-operation-osen-1951", "name": "Operation Osen phased deportation from Lithuania, September-November 1951", "region": "Europe / Russia and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "September–November 1951 CE", "periods": [ { "start": 1951, "end": 1951, "yearLabel": "September–November 1951 CE", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Lithuanian families classified as relatives or supporters of armed resistance and households categorized as kulaks. The reported 20,357 persons and approximately 4,000 kulak households are distinct units and are not added." ], "settlers": [ "USSR and Lithuanian SSR security, party-administrative, local operational, rail and special-settlement authorities. This field records responsible actors, not an inferred incoming settler population." ], "evidence": "The authenticated exhibit and Commission conclusions support the September–November 1951 three-phase operation, resolution, authorities, affected categories, rail deportation, special settlement and confiscation.", "story": "USSR Council of Ministers resolution 3309-1568ss of 5 September 1951 authorized Operation Osen in Lithuania. The operation unfolded in three linked phases: a 20–21 September action against partisan families, the principal 2–3 October deportation, and a 30 November cleanup. These phases form one bounded September–November operation, not three cases.\n\nSoviet and Lithuanian SSR security, party-administrative, local operational, rail and special-settlement authorities used lists to round up households and deport them by rail. The operation included confiscation of agricultural and household property and permanent special settlement, in the context of resistance suppression and collectivization.\n\nThe opened evidence reports 20,357 deportees and identifies approximately 4,000 households categorized as kulaks. Persons and households are different units, and the kulak-household figure is a category within the operation rather than an additional population to add to the person total. Phase-specific victim breakdowns and a complete household roster are not supplied.\n\nDestinations, special-settlement assignments, confiscated property, later mortality and later return belong to distinct evidence scopes. The packet does not infer a complete destination roster, property total, mortality total, return total, or movement within the special-settlement system.", "contested": "The approved bodies do not supply a complete household roster, phase-specific victim breakdown, complete destination/special-settlement assignments, or complete later mortality and return outcomes.", "note": "Frozen profile preserved; geometry unknown; impact null; no incoming-flight note.", "placeGloss": "Lithuania and named destinations are textual context only.", "geometryExplanation": "No complete household-level origins, routes, destinations, points or polygons are established.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_lithuania_osen_genocid_exhibit_1951", "v7_lithuania_osen_commission_conclusions" ] }, { "id": "prospective-m23-north-kivu-conflict-displacement-from-march-2022", "name": "M23-related North Kivu conflict displacement from March 2022, observed through 19 March 2024", "region": "Central Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "March 2022–19 March 2024 observation window", "periods": [ { "start": 2022, "end": 2024, "yearLabel": "March 2022–19 March 2024 observation window", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Civilian residents displaced in North Kivu during the renewed M23 phase. Nearly 521,000 departures are attributed to an M23 offensive, as a nonunique, nonadditive movement estimate rather than an event-wide total." ], "settlers": [ "M23 and FARDC-aligned forces are the principal belligerents in the bounded evidence. No distinct incoming settler population is established; MONUSCO is identified only as a protection and blocking-position actor." ], "evidence": "UNHCR supports the March 2022 renewed phase, flight mechanisms and the nearly 521,000 attributed movement estimate. S/2024/251 paragraphs 19, 21–25 and 34–36 support the later battlefield, Sake flight, mixed-cause site concentration and onward displacement through 19 March 2024.", "story": "UNHCR records renewed clashes between armed groups and government forces in North Kivu from March 2022. Its opened reporting describes people fleeing homes, reaching improvised sites around Goma and host locations under pressure, attempting returns, and losing access to fields and livelihoods. This case begins with that renewed phase; it does not absorb the earlier 2012–2013 M23 episode.\n\nA UNHCR snapshot attributes nearly 521,000 departures to an M23 offensive. That is an attributed movement estimate rather than a roster of unique people. It is not added to the broader North Kivu displacement stock, the population of sites around Goma, later movements, returns, or repeated displacement.\n\nFor 1 December 2023 through 19 March 2024, the Secretary-General reported M23 reoccupying former regional-force positions and expanding beyond earlier ceasefire lines toward Goma and Sake. The report also describes fighting involving FARDC, FARDC-supported armed groups and Volontaires pour la défense de la patrie, Burundian forces, and later the Southern African Development Community Mission. MONUSCO appears as a protection and blocking-position actor, not as the agent of displacement.\n\nAs M23 advanced toward Sake, tens of thousands of displaced people fled the wider Sake area toward Goma. The report separately counted more than 630,000 people in 104 sites in and around Goma, including people displaced amid renewed M23–FARDC fighting, and recorded onward displacement toward Minova and Kalehe. The Sake movement, the mixed-cause site population, and onward or repeated movements have different referents and are not combined.\n\nThe observation window closes on 19 March 2024 because that is the report cutoff, not because the conflict ended. Wider North Kivu, Ituri, ADF, Ruzizi and national DRC stocks, and reporting after that date, remain outside this case. Named territories provide textual orientation only; the sources do not establish complete routes, points, polygons, unique-person crosswalks, or an event-wide total.", "contested": "No termination is established. The 521,000 attributed movements, broader provincial and national stocks, mixed-cause site population, onward movements and repeated displacement cannot be added. Unique persons, full returns and allocation among other armed-group causes remain unknown.", "note": "The complete frozen profile is retained. Geometry remains unknown, structured impact remains null, and the admitted 21-note overlay does not contain this event; no flight-note state is inferred from history.", "placeGloss": "Rutshuru, Masisi, Nyiragongo, Sake, Goma, Minova and Kalehe are textual orientation only.", "geometryExplanation": "The approved sources do not establish complete origins, destinations, routes, points or polygons.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_m23_north_kivu_un_s_2024_251", "v7_m23_north_kivu_unhcr_2023" ] }, { "id": "prospective-bosnia-bosnian-serb-common-plan-1991-1995", "name": "Bosnian Serb common plan to remove Muslims and Croats from claimed territory", "region": "Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "October 1991–30 November 1995", "periods": [ { "start": 1991, "end": 1995, "yearLabel": "October 1991–30 November 1995", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats lawfully present in the twenty strategically important municipalities adjudicated in the Municipalities component. No nonduplicated event-wide number is established." ], "settlers": [ "Bosnian Serb leadership and implementing political, military, police and municipal structures. This field identifies responsible actors; no distinct incoming settler population is established for this event unit." ], "evidence": "ICTY Trial Judgment paragraphs 3435–3455, especially 3439–3447, support the common-plan boundary, protected groups, twenty-municipality geography, differentiated actor contributions, recurring removal mechanisms and qualified demographic outcome.", "story": "The ICTY Trial Chamber found a common plan from October 1991 through 30 November 1995 to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb-claimed territory through crimes. This case is limited to the twenty strategically important municipalities adjudicated in the Municipalities component, grouped in Eastern Bosnia, the Autonomous Region of Krajina and the Sarajevo area. It does not represent every municipality or every displacement during the Bosnian war.\n\nThe Chamber stated that the Variant A/B Instructions and Strategic Goals did not themselves call for crimes. It nevertheless found that their objectives of ethnic separation and a largely homogeneous entity, together with planned military implementation, entailed territorial takeover and forcible movement and created structures through which the criminal purpose could be achieved. The distinction between the stated instruments and their criminal implementation is retained here.\n\nThe Chamber described a recurring pattern rather than a universal checklist for each person. It included attacks and takeovers, short departure deadlines, organized transport by truck, bus or train, arrest and detention, violence or threats, discriminatory measures, destruction and fear-induced flight. People were moved elsewhere within Bosnia and Herzegovina or to third countries. Municipal actions are nested implementations of this plan and are not added as separate cases or totals.\n\nThe judgment assigns different contributions to different actors. Krajišnik, Koljević and Plavšić are discussed through leadership positions and municipal involvement; Mladić through command and VRS operations; and Mićo Stanišić and Mandić through development and implementation of the Bosnian Serb MUP. These findings do not make their acts, knowledge, dates or liability identical.\n\nThe Chamber found drastic changes in ethnic composition and reported that by 1995 almost no Bosnian Muslims or Croats remained in many of the municipalities. Most of the reviewed municipal crimes occurred from April through October 1992 and continued through the conflict. The passages do not establish an event-wide count, complete municipality sequence, formal title-transfer system, incoming settlement program, postwar return outcome or long-run durability.", "contested": "The reviewed synthesis does not provide a nonduplicated event-wide number, complete municipality roster or sequence, municipality-specific counts, formal property-title or confiscation scheme, incoming settler program, labor or economic regime, or postwar return and durability outcome. Whole-war displacement, Srebrenica and genocide findings, distinct municipalities or operations, HVO/Herceg-Bosna conduct, Bosnian-government-force violations, onward displacement and postwar movements are outside this unit.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "Eastern Bosnia, the Autonomous Region of Krajina and the Sarajevo area define the judgment's regional groupings; they do not supply a complete municipality map or transfer routes.", "geometryExplanation": "The reviewed passages do not establish complete event origins, destinations, routes, points or polygons.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_bosnia_bosnian_serb_common_plan_icty_2016" ] }, { "id": "prospective-christmas-island-phosphate-colonial-bound-labor", "name": "British annexation, phosphate-company settlement, and indentured migrant labour on Christmas Island", "region": "Indian Ocean", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "From 1888; terminal year unresolved", "periods": [ { "start": 1888, "end": 1888, "yearLabel": "From 1888; terminal year unresolved", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Indentured migrant phosphate workers identified by Parks Australia, including several hundred Chinese labourers; Malay and Sikh workers are also named. The evidence does not place every worker or every named population in one universal labor status." ], "settlers": [ "British Crown authorities; John Murray and George Clunies-Ross as lessees; the Christmas Island Phosphate Company and British managers; and the imported labor communities involved in the phosphate settlement. Later operators belong to distinct phases." ], "evidence": "Parks Australia's official history supports the 1888 annexation and first settlement, Crown lease and company, phosphate mining and shipment, indentured migrant labour, British supervision, severe early conditions, community formation and its attributed early Chinese-worker beriberi deaths.", "story": "Britain annexed Christmas Island in 1888 in connection with its phosphate deposits, and the first European settlement was established that year. Crown authorities later leased the island to John Murray and George Clunies-Ross; their company organized phosphate mining under British management. Company formation, the start of mining and the first major shipment were separate steps, culminating in the first major shipment in 1900.\n\nParks Australia identifies indentured migrant labourers in the phosphate workforce, including several hundred Chinese labourers, and also names Malay and Sikh workers. The record supports indenture, British supervision and severe early conditions. It does not establish that all workers were indentured or forced migrants, or supply complete contract terms, debt arrangements, penal enforcement, freedom-to-leave rules, recruitment routes or cohort totals.\n\nParks Australia reports that more than 500 Chinese workers died from beriberi during the first five years of mining and links the disease to inadequate diet. This is an attributed early Chinese-worker mortality figure. It is not an all-worker total, a migration count, a verified roster, a population share or a structured impact value.\n\nThe imported workforce contributed to a durable multicultural community. That outcome does not establish a common status for descendants or a uniform experience across labor streams. Later 1950s contractor-era controls are a distinct phase and are not projected backward onto early indenture.\n\nThe case begins in 1888 and remains open-ended because the reviewed authorities do not establish when indentured or otherwise bound labor ended. Later operator changes, sovereignty transfer, Japanese occupation, asylum and detention history, and post-1987 mining do not close or enlarge this bounded unit.", "contested": "The terminal year, exact early contract terms, recruitment voluntariness, debt, penal enforcement, freedom to leave, complete labor-stream chronology, worker routes, cohort totals, population shares, survival rates and descendant status remain unresolved. The case does not use slavery terminology or treat every Chinese, Malay or Sikh participant as indentured.", "note": "The 1888 period coordinate marks the known start only and is not an ending date. The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "Christmas Island, Flying Fish Cove and the phosphate zone are textual settings only.", "geometryExplanation": "The reviewed authorities do not establish a complete worker route, origin set, receiving point, mine polygon or land parcel geometry.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_christmas_island_phosphate_parks_history" ] }, { "id": "prospective-algeria-harki-reprisal-flight-resettlement-1961-1965", "name": "French abandonment, reprisal, flight, transfer, and camp confinement of former Harkis and their families", "region": "North Africa and Europe", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "From 1961; terminal year unresolved", "periods": [ { "start": 1961, "end": 1961, "yearLabel": "From 1961; terminal year unresolved", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Former Harkis and their families threatened by reprisals and moved from Algeria to metropolitan France. Other auxiliaries, officials, broader threatened-Algerian categories and the Pied-Noir exodus remain separate." ], "settlers": [ "French military and ministerial authorities shaped disarmament, restricted transfer, transport and later reception. No distinct incoming settler population is established for this event unit." ], "evidence": "The museum synthesis and François-Xavier Hautreux’s official history support the 1961–1962 demobilization sequence, reprisals, restrictions on departure, distinct movement channels and later camp and legal treatment.", "story": "A reduction in Harki strength was under way during 1961, and many remained armed when the Évian agreements were signed in March 1962. Hautreux describes demobilization as a chaotic sequence of desertion, disarmament and abuses. This case uses 1961 as a starting coordinate, without claiming an exact onset day or a closed endpoint.\n\nFrench army camps in Algeria received threatened people, mostly former Harkis and their families but also other auxiliaries and officials. At the same time, French ministries issued directions that restricted former auxiliaries’ movement to metropolitan France. Official military transport, journeys made independently, and movement assisted by former officers were distinct routes, not one uniform evacuation program.\n\nAbuses began in spring 1962 and broadened after independence. The sources report killings, imprisonment and dispossession but do not establish a Harki-specific death or displacement total, a complete set of perpetrators, or household-level land losses. The broader Pied-Noir and European exodus and other violence during the Algerian War are outside this event unit.\n\nIn metropolitan France, some former Harkis and family members spent years in transit centers, hurried camps or forest villages. A July 1962 nationality rule and later regulations produced unequal treatment compared with Pieds-Noirs. These later reception and legal phases extended beyond the initial transfers, so the sources do not support treating 1965 as the event’s terminal year.", "contested": "The exact onset and terminal year, Harki-specific reprisal deaths, unique displaced or transferred total, complete perpetrator attribution, individual routes, universal confinement, household land losses, labor effects and long-run return outcomes remain unresolved. Armed strength, mixed transfers, military transport, independent movement and camp-passage figures describe different or overlapping categories and are not added.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "Algeria and metropolitan France define the movement frame; eastern Algeria was especially affected by violence, but the sources do not establish a complete origin, route or camp map.", "geometryExplanation": "No complete household origins, transport routes, camp destinations or event boundary are established.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_algeria_harki_mnhi_hautreux_1962_2013" ] }, { "id": "prospective-renewed-lurd-model-war-displacement", "name": "LURD–MODEL war displacement in Liberia, July 2000–2003", "region": "West Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "July 2000–2003", "periods": [ { "start": 2000, "end": 2003, "yearLabel": "July 2000–2003", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Liberian civilians displaced internally or across borders during the renewed war. Reported episodes and internal and refugee movements may overlap and do not establish a unique total." ], "settlers": [ "Charles Taylor’s government, the Armed Forces of Liberia and aligned militias; LURD; and MODEL only on its distinct 2003 southeastern front. This field identifies responsible actors; no incoming settler population is established." ], "evidence": "Human Rights Watch, pages 2 and 7–8, and the Liberia Truth and Reconciliation Commission, sections 7.3.1, 7.4 and 9.1, support the bounded chronology, differentiated actors, mechanisms, textual geography and qualified outcomes.", "story": "This renewed-war unit begins with LURD’s incursion in July 2000. It excludes the first Liberian civil war and its 1997 election and return transition. Border incidents reported in 1999 remain an unassigned precursor because the reviewed sources do not establish them as the July 2000 incursion.\n\nHuman Rights Watch reports that attacks forced civilians from homes in northwestern Liberia and later produced further internal and cross-border flight as fighting expanded. It attributes killings, torture, rape, looting, burning, forced recruitment, forced labor and some obstruction of flight to government forces or aligned militias. It separately attributes summary killings, rape, abduction, forced recruitment, portering and movement restrictions to LURD, while also recording episodes in which commanders allowed or escorted civilians out. These findings are not universalized across people or phases.\n\nLURD moved from raids to repeated attacks in Lofa, held named towns for periods and expanded toward Bong, Grand Cape Mount and Bomi. The TRC identifies MODEL entering only in 2003 on a separate southeastern front. These places describe shifting operations and displacement pressures; they do not establish continuous territorial control, an event polygon or complete movement routes.\n\nThe government, LURD and MODEL signed a ceasefire on 18 June 2003, but the TRC records that it was broken before the later August agreement. The June ceasefire is therefore a political marker, not proof that every abuse or movement ended. The sources do not provide a unique displacement total, event-wide death total, land-transfer program, population share, last movement day or universal return outcome.", "contested": "The exact July onset day, 1999 precursor status beyond its exclusion, overlapping episode and internal/cross-border counts, person-level attribution, complete locality roster, Monrovia siege-specific totals, land/property outcomes, event-wide deaths, population denominator, return/nonreturn outcomes and last displacement day remain unresolved.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "The reviewed sources name shifting northwestern and central fronts and a distinct southeastern MODEL front. Named towns are textual context only, not points, routes, polygons or a complete control map.", "geometryExplanation": "Operational places do not establish complete civilian origins, destinations, routes, front lines or territorial polygons.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_liberia_renewed_lurd_model_trc", "v7_liberia_renewed_lurd_model_hrw" ] }, { "id": "prospective-indochina-cambodia-khmer-rouge-evacuation", "name": "Khmer Rouge urban evacuation and nationwide forced displacement in Cambodia, 1975–1979", "region": "Southeast Asia and the Pacific", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "national", "dates": "17 April 1975–early 1979", "periods": [ { "start": 1975, "end": 1979, "yearLabel": "17 April 1975–early 1979", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Residents of Phnom Penh forced out beginning 17 April 1975; residents of other Cambodian cities and towns evacuated later during Khmer Rouge rule. Expelled foreign residents, internally displaced people and people who crossed into Thailand, Laos or Viet Nam remain distinct cohorts." ], "settlers": [ "Khmer Rouge revolutionary forces and the Democratic Kampuchea regime carried out the evacuations. UNHCR attributes the broader campaign to Pol Pot; it does not establish a discrete evacuation order or a distinct incoming settler population." ], "evidence": "UNHCR, printed pages 91–92, dates the Phnom Penh emptying to 17 April 1975, describes later evacuation of cities and towns and nationwide collectivized labour camps, and bounds Khmer Rouge rule by the Vietnamese invasion in early 1979. Chapter endnotes 20–22 identify the retrospective source basis.", "story": "Khmer Rouge forces entered Phnom Penh on 17 April 1975 and systematically emptied the city. The UNHCR retrospective reports that other major cities and towns were evacuated later during the regime’s four-year rule, without supplying a city-by-city chronology or a separately documented evacuation order.\n\nDuring the same rule, the regime established collectivized labour camps throughout Cambodia. This is institutional context for the displacement case; the source does not establish that every person expelled from a city entered a camp or identify any person-level rural, camp, cooperative or work destination.\n\nThe source separately describes extensive internal displacement, expulsion of foreign residents and escape across the borders with Thailand, Laos and Viet Nam during 1975–1978. These populations may overlap and are not added into a unique-person total or treated as shares of one denominator.\n\nThis unit ends with the early-1979 boundary of Khmer Rouge rule. Flight caused by the Vietnamese invasion, later border and camp phases, subsequent conflict displacement and the 1992–1993 return remain outside it. The whole genocide, regime-wide forced labour system and combined deaths from executions, starvation, disease and overwork are not recast as this evacuation’s impact.", "contested": "Individual routes and destinations, city-specific evacuation dates after Phnom Penh, distinct implementers or orders, unique numbers of evacuees or displaced people, overlap among internal and cross-border cohorts, evacuation-specific deaths, motives, land or property transfers, settlement outcomes and durable return remain unresolved.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "Phnom Penh anchors the documented 17 April 1975 onset; later Cambodian cities, towns, collectivized labour camps across Cambodia and borders remain textual context rather than mapped routes or destinations.", "geometryExplanation": "The source does not establish complete origins, person-level destinations, routes, camp locations or an event polygon.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_cambodia_khmer_rouge_evacuation_unhcr_2000" ] }, { "id": "prospective-ruzizi-plain-intercommunity-displacement-december-2023-march-2024", "name": "Ruzizi Plain intercommunity-violence displacement in South Kivu, 1 December 2023–19 March 2024", "region": "Central Africa", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1 December 2023–19 March 2024 observation window", "periods": [ { "start": 2023, "end": 2024, "yearLabel": "1 December 2023–19 March 2024 observation window", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Civilian residents of the Ruzizi Plain displaced by reported intercommunity violence. The source gives no displaced count, community-specific count, direction, destination or legal category." ], "settlers": [ "The report discusses civilian vulnerability to armed-group violence along ethnic lines and separately names community groupings in Ruzizi tensions. It does not identify Ruzizi armed units, assign collective perpetration or establish an incoming settler population." ], "evidence": "United Nations report S/2024/251, introduction paragraph 1 and paragraphs 26–27, covers 1 December 2023–19 March 2024 and places the Ruzizi escalation within discussion of armed-group violence along ethnic lines and states that the escalation resulted in population displacement.", "story": "The United Nations reporting period runs from 1 December 2023 through 19 March 2024. Those dates define this source observation window; they do not establish when Ruzizi Plain violence began or ended.\n\nThe report describes escalating tensions involving Banyamulenge and Barundi communities and Bavira, Banyindu and Bafuliru communities. These names identify bounded community groupings in the report, not homogeneous sides, armed units or collective perpetrators.\n\nThe report says the Ruzizi escalation resulted in population displacement and that violence spread to other areas. It supplies no displaced count, village roster, direction, destination, community allocation or unique-person total, so none is inferred.\n\nProvince-wide incident and casualty figures in paragraph 26 are not assigned to the Ruzizi Plain. The separate Haut-Plateaux confrontations, M23-related movement toward Minova and Kalehe, 1998–2003 war displacement, earlier Ruzizi violence and events after 19 March 2024 remain outside this bounded unit.", "contested": "The full onset and endpoint, named armed units, individual responsibility, affected localities, number and composition of displaced people, directions and destinations, deaths or injuries, property or land effects, population shares, persistence and return outcomes remain unresolved.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "The Ruzizi Plain in South Kivu is the bounded textual geography. The report does not establish affected-village coordinates, routes, destinations or a conflict polygon.", "geometryExplanation": "No complete civilian origins, destinations, routes, affected-village roster or event polygon are established.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_ruzizi_plain_un_s_2024_251" ] }, { "id": "prospective-nk-lachin-azerbaijani-displacement-1992", "name": "Lachin capture and Azerbaijani civilian displacement, 17–18 May 1992", "region": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "17–18 May 1992", "periods": [ { "start": 1992, "end": 1992, "yearLabel": "17–18 May 1992", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Azerbaijani civilian residents of Lachin district, many of Kurdish descent. The approximately 30,000 estimate is attributed to Human Rights Watch as reproduced by the judgment and is approximate, nonadditive and not a household roster." ], "settlers": [ "Forces of Armenian ethnicity captured Lachin. The parties disputed the degree of Armenian state-force participation. The judgment does not establish a distinct incoming settler population or a May 1992 land-transfer mechanism." ], "evidence": "The Grand Chamber judgment, paragraphs 12–30, 137–150, 169–186 and 192–208, supports the bounded flight/capture sequence, qualified damage account, applicant-specific property findings and later majority jurisdiction and continuing-access findings.", "story": "As troops advanced toward Lachin, villagers fled on 17 May 1992. Forces of Armenian ethnicity captured the town on 18 May. The parties disputed the degree of participation by Armenian state forces, so that question remains qualified.\n\nThe judgment says the town appears to have been looted and burnt in the days after the takeover. Separately, it reports information relayed by the Armenian Government from the NKR authorities that Lachin city and named surrounding villages were completely destroyed during the military conflict. That separately attributed statement does not establish the date or extent of each loss.\n\nThe judgment attributes to Human Rights Watch an estimate of approximately 30,000 displaced Azerbaijanis, many of Kurdish descent, after the capture of Lachin district. This approximate estimate is not added to the district population, the six applicants, households, destruction measures or wider-war displacement.\n\nThe Court found that the six applicants had lived and worked in Lachin and sufficiently substantiated houses and protected land-use interests when they fled. Those applicant-specific findings do not establish private ownership of land across the district, a transfer to settlers or a complete return history. The Grand Chamber majority’s later effective-control ruling concerned Convention jurisdiction and does not conclusively identify the composition of the force that captured Lachin on 18 May.", "contested": "Exact capture-force composition, the complete displaced roster, destruction extent and timing, Lachin-specific deaths, return history, settlement mechanism, land transfer and population shares remain unresolved. The whole Nagorno-Karabakh war, Khojaly, Shusha, Operation Ring, surrounding-district offensives, the later corridor and blockade, and 2020/2023 displacement are excluded.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added. The frozen record’s reversed capture-followed-by-flight wording must never be copied into public prose.", "placeGloss": "Lachin city and district are textual geography only; no point, route, settlement footprint or event polygon is inferred.", "geometryExplanation": "The evidence does not establish complete origins, routes, destinations, affected-property locations or an event polygon.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_lachin_chiragov_2015" ] }, { "id": "modern-myanmar-karenni-war-displacement", "name": "Renewed armed conflict and civilian displacement in Kayah (Karenni) State from May 2021", "region": "Southeast Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "From May 2021; observed February 2022 and 28 March 2025, open end", "periods": [ { "start": 2021, "end": 2025, "yearLabel": "From May 2021; observed through 28 March 2025, open end", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Civilians and repeatedly displaced Kayah-origin families sheltering in forests, religious sites, communities, camps and neighboring southern Shan. “Karenni” identifies the state or region and does not assign one ethnicity to every displaced person." ], "settlers": [ "The sources describe the Myanmar Armed Forces and opposing ethnic, local or other non-state armed groups. They do not provide a complete formation roster, incident-level perpetrator attribution or a distinct incoming settler population." ], "evidence": "The UNHCR story establishes renewed conflict from May 2021, repeated movement from Demoso and Loikaw into southern Shan and the separate arrival/assistance measures. OCHA Update No. 45 supplies a 28 March 2025 observation of residential and displacement-site effects and conditions in Kayah.", "story": "Renewed armed conflict began in Kayah State in May 2021. UNHCR describes fighting involving the Myanmar Armed Forces and ethnic, local or other armed groups, without establishing a complete formation roster or assigning every incident to a particular force.\n\nProtected-name family accounts trace repeated movement from Demoso to Loikaw, forests and neighboring southern Shan. They illustrate repeated Kayah-origin displacement rather than a universal route, and refuge in Shan does not turn this into a Shan conflict unit.\n\nUNHCR reported roughly 30,000 people arriving in southern Shan from Kayah since the beginning of 2022 and roughly 10,000 Kayah-origin displaced people receiving assistance in recent weeks. The assisted group is nested within the wider movement context; the two measures are nonadditive and cannot yield a unique event total.\n\nOn 28 March 2025, OCHA reported attacks and destruction affecting residential areas and displacement sites particularly across Kayah, Kayin and southern Shan, alongside displacement conditions in Demoso, Hpasawng and Hpruso. This is a later observation, not proof that every earlier cohort remained displaced, a new movement total or a closed endpoint.", "contested": "The complete actor roster, exact ethnic composition, nonduplicated displaced total, incident-level attribution, deaths, land transfer, population shares, universal property loss, settlement, returns and event endpoint remain unresolved. Nationwide figures, Karen/Kayin and other fronts, earlier Karenni history and Thailand refugee stocks and returns are excluded.", "note": "The complete frozen eight-trait profile is retained without recoding. Structured impact remains null, geometry remains unknown, origins and targets remain empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "Kayah State, Demoso, Loikaw, Hpasawng, Hpruso and neighboring southern Shan are textual locations; no universal route or geometry is inferred.", "geometryExplanation": "The sources do not establish complete origins, routes, destinations, incident locations or an event polygon.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_myanmar_karenni_unhcr_2022", "v7_myanmar_karenni_ocha_update_45_2025" ] }, { "id": "modern-myanmar-northern-shan-three-brotherhood-offensive-displacement-from-2023", "name": "Three Brotherhood Alliance offensive and civilian displacement in northern Shan from 26 October 2023", "region": "Southeast Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "From 26 October 2023; January 2024 ceasefire marker; observed through 28 March 2025, open end", "periods": [ { "start": 2023, "end": 2025, "yearLabel": "From 26 October 2023; January 2024 ceasefire marker; observed through 28 March 2025, open end", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Civilian residents of northern-Shan townships displaced to religious compounds, relatives and other sites, including people moving toward the China border. Separately, media reported crossings, whose exact numbers partners could not verify. Ethnicity, repeated-displacement status and a nonduplicated total remain unresolved." ], "settlers": [ "The Three Brotherhood Alliance—MNDAA, TNLA and AA. The reported attacks targeted MAF and police bases, while reported fighting involved the MAF, EAOs and PDFs. This is not a complete later-phase roster.", "No distinct incoming settler population is established for this event unit." ], "evidence": "OCHA Flash Update No. 3 supports the 26 October 2023 onset, alliance membership, northern-Shan displacement, damage, transport disruption and attributed China-border reporting. Update No. 45 supports the 28 March 2025 observation; Update No. 39 is supplementary evidence for the January ceasefire marker and later resumption only.", "story": "OCHA dates the escalation to attacks on military and police bases beginning 26 October 2023. Fighting, shelling, airstrikes, road and airport closures and damage to civilian houses accompanied displacement across northern Shan.\n\nAs of 9 November 2023, nearly 50,000 people were reportedly displaced and sheltering in religious compounds or with relatives. Some moved toward the China border. Separately, media reported crossings, whose exact numbers partners could not verify.\n\nThe 11 January 2024 ceasefire is a phase marker. OCHA later reported resumed clashes from 25 June in Kyaukme, Lashio and Nawnghkio and a separate nearly 12,900-person displacement-site stock tied to the late-October-to-early-January escalation. Those measures are nonadditive and do not establish return outcomes.\n\nAt the 28 March 2025 observation point, northern Shan remained volatile under landmines, explosive ordnance, airstrikes and shelling. The source does not establish an endpoint.\n\nThe AA–MAF Rakhine/Paletwa theater, Kachin and nationwide displacement remain separate.", "contested": "Later subphase participation and attribution, exact house and household losses, unique displacement totals, repeated movement, China-border status and destinations, casualties, returns, governance/legal regime and the terminal date remain unresolved.", "note": "The complete frozen profile is retained without recoding. Repeated movement remains unresolved rather than an affirmative supported mechanism. Structured impact remains null, geometry unknown, origins and targets empty, and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "Northern Shan, Kyaukme, Lashio, Nawnghkio and the Lashio–Muse/China-border corridor are textual geography only; no point, route, footprint or event polygon is inferred.", "geometryExplanation": "The evidence does not establish complete origins, routes, destinations, incident locations or an event polygon.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_myanmar_northern_shan_ocha_flash_update_3_2023", "v7_myanmar_northern_shan_ocha_update_45_2025" ] }, { "id": "modern-three-gorges-resettlement", "name": "Three Gorges Dam compulsory resettlement", "region": "East Asia", "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "dates": "1994–2012", "periods": [ { "start": 1994, "end": 2012, "yearLabel": "1994–2012", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "displaced": [ "Residents compulsorily relocated from Three Gorges reservoir inundation and project construction or relocation zones. Planned, estimated, audited and study-summary quantities remain separately attributed and nonadditive." ], "settlers": [ "No distinct incoming settler population is established for this event unit. Receiving-area residents and relocated households are not reclassified as settlers." ], "evidence": "Cernea’s World Bank working paper provides the public citation and documents construction-era and annex estimate frames. The retained official regulation, audit material and longitudinal study support the bounded program, compulsory movement, implementation observations and sample-bound later outcomes without creating additional public identities.", "story": "The Three Gorges Project compulsorily relocated residents from reservoir inundation and project construction or relocation zones through a state-directed resettlement program. The official framework joined planned relocation with compensation, resettlement funding, resource development and later production support; it does not establish uniform receipt, adequacy or success.\n\nCernea’s World Bank paper lists a 1.1 million construction-era displacement estimate and, in a mixed-source annex containing project-inception estimates, a separate 1.3 million figure. Official audit material reports 1.2964 million people actually relocated and housed by the end of 2011. A longitudinal synthesis separately describes 1.2 million people as resettled. These four attributed frames measure different things and are not added, reconciled or treated as a final unique-person census.\n\nSample-bound later research described changing but uneven livelihood outcomes after relocation. Those observations do not establish a new movement, population-wide harm or benefit, structured impact, household or land-loss total, compensation outcome or mortality claim.", "contested": "The sources use different dates, methods and quantities. A unique final displaced-person count, household total, land-loss total, compensation total or adequacy finding, mortality total, impoverishment total and population-wide outcome share remain unresolved.", "note": "The frozen 1994–2012 boundary is exact. Danjiangkou and South-to-North Water Transfer resettlement, other dams, mining displacement, secondary or geologic-hazard relocation, later livelihood changes as movement, and post-project urban migration remain outside this unit. The complete frozen profile remains exact; structured impact is null, geometry unknown and no incoming-flight note is added.", "placeGloss": "Three Gorges reservoir and construction-zone relocation is textual geography only; no origin, destination, route, reservoir polygon, inundation line or receiving-site geometry is inferred.", "geometryExplanation": "The evidence does not establish complete origins, destinations, routes, receiving sites or a project-event polygon.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_three_gorges_world_bank_cernea_1997" ] }, { "id": "eu-operation-vistula", "name": "Operation Vistula deportation and dispersal", "region": "Europe", "dates": "1947–1950", "extent": "regional", "story": "Operation Vistula was carried out under communist rule in Poland in 1947 to move a population that authorities defined as Ukrainian from the southeast to northern and western territories. The article identifies Lemkos as principal victims and describes dispersal away from their native territory.\n\nThe source reports military proposals for westward settlement in dispersal and describes rapid planning steps in April 1947. Its interpretation of causes, responsibility and Moscow’s role remains attributed to the author, who also notes unresolved Soviet archival evidence.\n\nThe article reports that restoration of public rights for displaced Ukrainians began in 1950. Later cultural measures, limited returns after 1956 and later redress remain separate from the 1947 removal and do not establish complete reversal.", "displaced": [ "People whom communist authorities defined as Ukrainian and removed from southeastern Poland, including Lemkos emphasized by the source", "Cohort composition and unique-person totals remain unresolved; earlier border transfers and later returns are separate" ], "settlers": [ "Communist state, military and security authorities in Poland directed the removal and dispersed resettlement.", "No distinct incoming settler population is established for this event unit." ], "evidence": "Zięba’s article supports the 1947 removal direction, authority-defined affected category, Lemko emphasis, dispersed-resettlement proposals, April planning chronology and the 1950 public-rights marker. Its causal and responsibility arguments are attributed rather than adopted as uncontested findings.", "contested": "Exact cohort composition, unique deportee total, individual affiliation, causes, Soviet and Polish decision roles, property outcomes, detention, labor, returns, restitution and the event’s terminal meaning remain unresolved or outside this source’s direct support.", "note": "The frozen 1947–1950 boundary is retained. Earlier 1944–1946 transfers, other Polish-Ukrainian violence, Jaworzno detention, post-1950 return and redress, and later identity politics remain separate.", "placeGloss": "Southeastern Poland and northern and western receiving territories are textual geography only; no origin, destination, route, settlement point or event polygon is inferred.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_operation_vistula_zieba_2017" ], "fit": "contextual", "periods": [ { "start": 1947, "end": 1950, "yearLabel": "1947–1950", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "geometryExplanation": "The source supports district-scale removal from southeastern Poland and dispersal to northern and western territories, but it does not establish a single reliable origin point, destination point, route, settlement point, or event polygon." }, { "id": "af-rwanda-genocide-exodus-return", "name": "Rwandan genocide, mass flight, and refugee return", "region": "Africa", "dates": "1994–1998", "extent": "regional", "story": "Within the frozen 1994–1998 unit, the 1994 genocide and RPF victory were followed by a mainly Hutu exodus of more than two million people. UNHCR attributes that movement to renewed fighting, fear of vengeance and panic organized by the collapsing government. By late August 1994, UNHCR estimated more than two million refugees in neighboring countries; it separately reported about 1.5 million internally displaced people at the end of the year, and the figures are not combined here. Return unfolded in distinct phases: more than 200,000 refugees returned from the Goma area between July 1994 and January 1995 before that movement halted, while a Zairean camp closure forcibly returned about 15,000 people in August 1995. Camp attacks in eastern Zaire in 1996 produced renewed flight and pressure-driven movement back toward Rwanda, and Tanzanian troops separately redirected refugees across the border in December 1996. Through September 1997, UNHCR transported more than 260,000 Rwandans it reached, including about 60,000 flown to Rwanda; the airlift is nested within the transported group and neither figure is added to earlier stocks or flows.", "displaced": [ "Mainly Hutu civilians who crossed Rwanda’s borders in 1994, including refugees held under former-government and militia influence in camps", "Rwandans internally displaced in 1994; this category remains separate from refugee stocks and return flows", "Zairean Tutsi displaced from Masisi and earlier-1959 Tutsi refugees who moved to Rwanda in 1995–1996; these are distinct cohorts", "Refugees moving west or returning to Rwanda during the 1994–1997 phases; repeated appearances across stocks and flows are unresolved" ], "settlers": [ "Earlier Tutsi refugees returning to Rwanda are preserved as a distinct return cohort.", "The source does not establish a universal settler label, property receipt or common reintegration outcome for returnees." ], "evidence": "UNHCR’s 31-page retrospective chapter distinguishes the 1994 exodus and dated refugee stocks, internal displacement, camp control, phased returns, forced or pressure-driven movements, disputed estimates and nested 1997 transport figures.", "contested": "UNHCR participated in the humanitarian and repatriation response it assesses. Late-1996 estimates were politically disputed, civilians and armed elements were difficult to separate, and the degree of choice varied across exile and return phases. No stock, flow or transport figure is treated as a unique-person total.", "note": "The frozen 1994–1998 boundary is preserved. The 1959–1963 expulsions, genocide deaths, the First Congo War as a whole, the distinct Congo war beginning in August 1998, 1999 returns and later DRC displacement remain outside this unit or appear only as boundary context.", "placeGloss": "Rwanda and neighboring asylum areas in Zaire/DRC, Tanzania, Burundi and Uganda are described textually. Named camps, borders, roads, westward movements and UNHCR transport do not establish a shared route or event geometry.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_rwanda_genocide_exodus_return_unhcr" ], "fit": "contextual", "periods": [ { "start": 1994, "end": 1998, "yearLabel": "1994–1998", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "geometryExplanation": "The source supports regional, cross-border, westward, and return movements across multiple 1994–1998 phases, but it does not establish a single reliable origin point, destination point, route, settlement point, or event polygon for the bounded unit." }, { "id": "asia-partition-india-pakistan-1947", "name": "Partition of India and Pakistan and reciprocal mass displacement", "region": "South Asia", "dates": "1947 and succeeding years", "extent": "regional", "story": "UNHCR describes partition and the creation of India and Pakistan in 1947 and attributes an estimated 14 million people displaced at the time. It states that Muslims in India fled to Pakistan and Hindus in Pakistan fled to India, with similar movements occurring on a smaller scale in succeeding years. The estimate and later movements remain attributed and nonadditive.", "displaced": [ "Muslims who fled India for Pakistan in the source’s directional description", "Hindus who fled Pakistan for India in the source’s directional description", "People in smaller similar movements in succeeding years; no further quantity or terminal year is established" ], "settlers": [ "This source establishes reciprocal directional flight only. It does not establish incoming settler populations, rehabilitation or property reassignment for this public proposal." ], "evidence": "The proposal uses only UNHCR chapter 3, physical PDF page 1 / printed page 3.", "contested": "The 14 million figure is an attributed estimate. This locus gives no detailed actor allocation, casualty figure, unique-person accounting across years, or Sikh-specific directional statement.", "note": "This source establishes 1947 and smaller succeeding-year movements. The 1971 East Pakistan war, post-surrender anti-Bihari displacement, Kashmir units and later movements remain separate.", "placeGloss": "India and Pakistan are the supported directional endpoints. No route, point, polygon or finer destination is established.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_partition_india_pakistan_1947_unhcr" ], "fit": "contextual", "periods": [ { "start": 1947, "end": 1951, "yearLabel": "1947 and succeeding years", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "geometryExplanation": "The source supports reciprocal country-level movement between India and Pakistan and smaller similar movements in succeeding years, but it does not establish a single reliable origin point, destination point, route, settlement point or event polygon for the bounded unit." }, { "id": "modern-burundi-civil-war-displacement", "name": "Burundi civil war and renewed mass displacement", "region": "Great Lakes Africa", "dates": "1993–2005", "extent": "regional", "story": "Within the frozen 1993–2005 unit, the UNHCR evaluation reports that the civil war in 1993 drove a further 400,000 refugees mainly to Tanzania and that 880,000 civilians were reported internally displaced at the height of the crisis. These are separately attributed measures and are not added or treated as a unique-person total. Internal displacement took different forms: some people settled near urban centres and military positions seeking protection from rebel groups, while others, mainly Hutu, were forced by the armed forces into regroupment camps during the second half of the 1990s. All but two conflict parties signed the Arusha Peace Agreement in 2000; the report then records substantial spontaneous return in 2001, organized repatriation beginning in 2002, and elections and a power-sharing constitution in 2005. These markers do not show that every return was voluntary or final, or that all displacement ended in 2005. A 2006 estimate of 100,000 remaining IDPs is retained only as later context and is not combined with the earlier refugee and IDP measures.", "displaced": [ "Refugees who fled during the 1993 civil war, reported mainly in Tanzania", "Civilians internally displaced at the crisis peak", "Mainly Hutu civilians forced by the armed forces into regroupment camps during the later 1990s", "People in spontaneous and organized return phases; repeated appearances across stocks, flows and returns are unresolved" ], "settlers": [ "The Burundian armed forces forced some mainly Hutu civilians into regroupment camps; rebel groups appear in the source as the stated security threat.", "No incoming settler population, universal actor assignment or common receiving outcome is established for this event unit." ], "evidence": "The exact historical locus is the 2009 UNHCR PDES evaluation’s Context paragraphs 11–13 and footnote 8 at physical PDF page 8 / printed page 4. The report’s broad legacy inventory title is identity-only.", "contested": "The reported refugee departure, peak internal-displacement stock, return phases and 2006 remaining-IDP stock differ in date and category and may overlap. The source supplies no person-level crosswalk, complete roster, common route, universal mechanism or deduplicated total.", "note": "The 1972 refugee cohort, smaller 1988 displacement, 2006 ceasefire and later return/cash-grant programme remain separate or later context. The frozen 1993–2005 boundary and complete profile are preserved without a mortality, land, impact, flight-note, score or denominator inference.", "placeGloss": "Burundi and Tanzania provide country-level orientation. Urban centres, military positions, regroupment camps and communes are not a complete origin, route or destination inventory.", "geometryExplanation": "The source supports country-scale cross-border flight and internal displacement but does not identify a single reliable origin point, destination point, route, settlement point or event polygon for this multi-phase unit.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_burundi_civil_war_displacement_unhcr_2009" ], "fit": "contextual", "periods": [ { "start": 1993, "end": 2005, "yearLabel": "1993–2005", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "eu-armenian-genocide-deportation", "name": "Armenian genocide deportations and forced removal", "region": "Europe / Middle East", "dates": "spring 1915–fall 1916", "extent": "regional", "fit": "contextual", "story": "From spring 1915 through fall 1916, the Ottoman government began deporting Armenians from northeastern border regions and expanded deportations to almost all provinces. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum identifies Ottoman authorities, supported by auxiliary troops and at times civilians, as perpetrators of persecution and mass killing. It reports local massacres, deaths during deportation and in or en route to southern desert regions, and the forced removal of tens of thousands of Armenian children from their families.", "displaced": [ "Armenian Christian people deported from northeastern border regions and, in later months, from almost all Ottoman provinces", "People killed in local massacres or who died during deportation and in or en route to southern desert regions", "Tens of thousands of Armenian children forcibly removed from their families; this is a separate cohort frame" ], "settlers": [ "The reviewed source establishes forced removal. It does not establish a distinct incoming settler population, property transfer or land redistribution for this bounded public account." ], "evidence": "United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Holocaust Encyclopedia, retained text lines 113, 116, 118 and 174–176; institutional author and last-edited metadata at lines 185–187.", "contested": "The source gives about 1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 as a population frame and estimates at least 664,000 and possibly as many as 1.2 million killed. Those figures and the tens-of-thousands child-removal statement are separate, approximate, attributed and nonadditive; none is a displacement or refugee total.", "note": "The reviewed evidence ends in fall 1916. Later Turkish nationalist expulsions, property or land claims, settler claims and synthetic totals remain outside this public case.", "placeGloss": "The source names northeastern Ottoman border regions, almost all provinces and southern desert regions. These broad areas do not establish a single route or exact event geometry.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The reviewed source identifies northeastern Ottoman border regions, deportations expanding to almost all provinces, and southern desert regions, but it does not define one reliable point, route, settlement location or polygon for this bounded event.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_armenian_genocide_deportation_ushmm" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1915, "end": 1923, "yearLabel": "spring 1915–fall 1916", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "modern-solomon-islands-tensions-displacement", "name": "Solomon Islands Tensions displacement", "region": "Melanesia", "dates": "1 January 1998–23 July 2003", "extent": "regional", "fit": "contextual", "story": "Within its 1 January 1998 to 23 July 2003 mandate, the Solomon Islands Truth and Reconciliation Commission short report separates three stages of forced displacement. It describes IFM eviction from Guadalcanal of families from other islands, mainly Malaitan settlers and plantation workers, and later phases in which mostly Guadalcanal families were forced to leave homes and live in the bush. The report attributes forced displacement to all armed groups involved while keeping actors, cohorts and stages distinct.", "displaced": [ "Families from other islands evicted from Guadalcanal by the IFM, mainly Malaitan settlers and plantation workers", "Mostly Guadalcanal families forced to abandon homes and live in the bush during later phases", "People named in the TRC's forced-displacement testimony dataset; testimony, person and household frames are not a population total" ], "settlers": [ "Malaitan settlers and plantation workers appear in the source as a displaced cohort. The reviewed evidence does not support treating all displaced people as settlers or asserting a new incoming settler population for the event." ], "evidence": "Government-hosted, ministry-produced simple-language short version of the Solomon Islands TRC report: physical PDF page 6 / printed page 5; page 8 / printed page 7; and pages 76–77 / printed pages 75–76. The document states that it is not the official Final Report and does not replace it.", "contested": "The TRC received 1,882 forced-displacement testimonies naming 11,292 persons. In reported displaced households, 33 percent left after direct threats and 67 percent because conditions became too insecure. These are dataset-specific testimony, person and household frames; they are attributed and nonadditive and do not measure all displaced people.", "note": "Earlier root causes and later RAMSI, reconciliation, return and reparation lie outside this event window. The case adds no death, land, property-total, universal motive, destination, duration or outcome claim and does not merge Bougainville or other Pacific conflicts.", "placeGloss": "The source distinguishes Guadalcanal evictions, Honiara-area phases, Malaita-linked cohorts and Weather Coast bush displacement. These do not define a single route or exact event geometry.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The reviewed source describes evictions from Guadalcanal, inter-island cohorts, Honiara-area phases and Weather Coast bush displacement, but its multiple phases and cohorts do not establish one reliable point, route, destination or polygon for the bounded event.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_solomon_islands_tensions_displacement_trc" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1998, "end": 2003, "yearLabel": "1 January 1998–23 July 2003", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "eu-romani-genocide", "name": "Nazi and Axis genocide of Roma and Sinti", "region": "Europe", "dates": "1939–1945", "extent": "regional", "fit": "contextual", "story": "From 1939 through 1945, Nazi German authorities subjected European Roma and Sinti to internment, forced labor, deportation and mass murder. German military, SS and police units shot Roma in occupied territories, while German authorities deported others to camps and killing centers. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum also documents specifically attributed persecution and killing by allied or collaborating authorities, while emphasizing that policies and outcomes varied by country.", "displaced": [ "European Roma and Sinti interned, deported or subjected to forced labor by Nazi German authorities", "Roma shot or murdered in killing centers in German-occupied territories", "Roma deported or killed by specifically identified allied or collaborating authorities; country and camp cohorts remain separate" ], "settlers": [ "The reviewed source establishes persecution, forced movement and killing. It does not establish a distinct incoming settler population, land transfer or settlement program for this bounded case." ], "evidence": "United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Holocaust Encyclopedia: rendered lines 98–112, 232–240, 263–270, 271–287 and 297–300; institutional author and last-edited metadata at lines 306–307.", "contested": "The Museum states that the exact number killed is unknown. It reports an estimate of at least 250,000 European Roma killed during the war and notes that some scholars place the figure around 500,000. These are alternative uncertain overall estimates, not additive totals; all plan, camp, deportation, national-population and nested death figures remain separate.", "note": "Pre-1939 persecution, postwar discrimination and restitution, general Holocaust history, non-Roma victim histories, property or settlement claims, and distinct country cases remain outside this bounded public case.", "placeGloss": "The source names multiple countries, occupied territories, camps and killing centers. These distributed examples do not define a single route or exact event geometry.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The reviewed source describes distributed deportations, internment, forced labor and killings across multiple European countries, occupied territories and camps; it does not establish one reliable origin, destination, route, point or event polygon.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_romani_genocide_ushmm_2023" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1939, "end": 1945, "yearLabel": "1939–1945", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "modern-nicaragua-2018-repression-exile", "name": "Nicaragua post-2018 repression and exile", "region": "Central America", "dates": "from April 2018; observed 10 March 2020", "extent": "regional", "fit": "contextual", "story": "UNHCR reported that more than 100,000 people had fled Nicaragua after the political and social crisis began in April 2018, seeking asylum amid reported persecution and human rights abuses. By 10 March 2020, students, human-rights defenders, journalists and farmers were continuing to leave at a reported average of 4,000 people per month. UNHCR described the crisis as unresolved at that observation date; the date does not mark an endpoint.", "displaced": [ "Nicaraguan students, human-rights defenders, journalists and farmers identified by UNHCR as continuing to flee", "About 77,000 Nicaraguan refugees and asylum seekers hosted in Costa Rica in the 10 March 2020 snapshot; this was described as about two-thirds of the worldwide frame", "Nicaraguan refugees and asylum seekers in Panama, Europe, Mexico and other countries within the same dated destination snapshot" ], "settlers": [ "The reviewed source establishes cross-border flight and asylum seeking. It does not establish a distinct incoming settler population, land transfer or settlement program for this bounded case." ], "evidence": "UNHCR briefing summary dated 10 March 2020, authenticated through the registered UNHCR page and official republication lines 76, 78, 83, 85–90 and 98.", "contested": "The source reports more than 100,000 people in its headline frame, an average flow of 4,000 per month, about 77,000 or two-thirds in Costa Rica, destination components, and 103,600 refugees and asylum seekers worldwide. These are dated headline, rate, nested host-share, destination-component and worldwide-snapshot frames; they are attributed and nonadditive and do not form a synthetic unique-person total.", "note": "The public evidence is observed through 10 March 2020 and remains open thereafter. It makes no claim here about post-2020 repression, denationalization, later totals, death or detention, property, land, settlement, return, resolution or a closed endpoint.", "placeGloss": "The source identifies Nicaragua as origin and names aggregate host regions and countries, chiefly Costa Rica. It does not describe precise travel routes or exact event geometry.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The reviewed source identifies Nicaragua as origin and Costa Rica, Panama, Europe, Mexico and other countries as aggregate destinations, but it does not establish one reliable route, point, settlement location or event polygon.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_nicaragua_repression_exile_unhcr_2020" ], "periods": [ { "start": 2018, "end": 2026, "yearLabel": "from April 2018; observed 10 March 2020", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "modern-bougainville-conflict-displacement", "name": "Bougainville conflict displacement", "region": "Melanesia", "dates": "December 1988 escalation; conflict described as 1989–1997; peace marker in 1997", "extent": "regional", "fit": "contextual", "story": "Testimony presented by Taloi Havini on behalf of Sister Lorraine Garasu describes an escalation in December 1988 and conflict from 1989 to 1997. Papua New Guinea police and defence forces, the Bougainville Revolutionary Army and Resistance Forces had distinct passage-specific roles as civilians moved into government care centres, inland or forest areas, and across borders. The testimony marks peace in 1997; the internal frozen endpoint is not presented as a source claim.", "displaced": [ "More than 20,000 civilians described as forced into government care centres in the 1989 operations frame", "More than 5,000 displaced Bougainvilleans described as refugees in Solomon Islands through the 1997 peace marker; this may overlap other movement frames", "Unquantified villagers and families who moved inland or into forest/BRA-controlled areas, plus separately described family movement to Australia" ], "settlers": [ "The reviewed testimony establishes conflict displacement. It does not establish a distinct incoming settler population, a quantified land transfer or an island-wide settlement program for this bounded case." ], "evidence": "Havini/Garasu conference contribution, printed pp. 141–153, especially the December 1988 escalation, 1989–1997 heading/frame, care-centre and Solomon cohort passages, local Ieta/Kokopo accounts and 1997 peace marker.", "contested": "The care-centre estimate, Solomon refugee estimate, inland/forest movement, named families, local return observations, villages and a separate casualty estimate are distinct or potentially overlapping frames. They are attributed and nonadditive; the casualty estimate is not a displacement count.", "note": "No later public endpoint, unique-person or household total, universal actor motive, island-wide property or land total, complete return account, death total or durable-outcome claim is made. The source is a conference contribution/testimony, not an OHCHR-authored report.", "placeGloss": "Named Bougainville localities and external destinations show distributed movement but do not define one precise route or geometry.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The reviewed testimony names Bougainville localities, government care centres, inland or forest movement, Solomon Islands and Australia, but it does not establish one reliable origin, destination, route, point or event polygon.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_bougainville_conflict_displacement_havini_2004" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1988, "end": 1998, "yearLabel": "December 1988 escalation; conflict described as 1989–1997; peace marker in 1997", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "prospective-baltic-operation-sever-april-1951", "name": "Operation Sever deportations in the Baltic republics", "region": "Europe / Russia and Central Asia", "dates": "31 March–1 April 1951", "extent": "regional", "fit": "contextual", "story": "During the night of 31 March–1 April 1951, Soviet authorities carried out deportations in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. A USSR Council resolution of 3 March and an MGB order of 5 March governed the removal of Jehovah’s Witnesses and family members. A separate Council resolution of 13 February, implemented through the same MGB order, covered former Anders Army members and families in Lithuania.", "displaced": [ "Jehovah’s Witnesses and family members removed from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; one study reports 475 people as 281, 44 and 150 national components", "The Latvia frame reports 44 people, including six children under sixteen; the six are nested within 44", "The Estonian Commission reports an alternative Estonia estimate of 353 Jehovah’s Witnesses with family members, not additive to the study’s 281 Estonia component", "The same study reports 283 former Anders Army members and family members deported from Lithuania under the separate Council resolution" ], "settlers": [ "The reviewed sources establish state deportation to special-settlement or exile destinations. They do not establish an incoming settler population or authorize a land-transfer claim for this bounded case." ], "evidence": "Estonian Commission printed/PDF p. 9 section 8; Latvian museum Operation North passage; Gams dissertation printed pp. 34–35 and 133; IPN night-of-action and following paragraphs.", "contested": "All counts remain attributed and nonadditive. The Estonia 353 and 281 figures are alternatives; six children are nested within Latvia’s 44; 281, 44 and 150 are components of 475; Lithuania’s 283 Anders-family frame is separate. The IPN article’s broader more-than-4,600 frame is not equated with 283 and its malformed subcount is unusable.", "note": "Siberia, Tomsk oblast and Irkutsk apply only to source-specific cohorts, not a universal route. Osen, Priboi, Vesna, June 1941 deportations, later persecution, death, forced labor, property, rosters, exact destinations, complete return and universal motive or outcome claims are excluded.", "placeGloss": "The sources identify three Baltic republics and cohort-specific destinations but do not support a single mapped deportation route.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The four reviewed sources describe deportations from three Baltic republics and name Siberia, Tomsk oblast and Irkutsk only for particular cohorts; they do not establish one universal origin-destination route, exact point or event polygon.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_operation_sever_estonia_commission_2008", "v7_operation_sever_latvia_museum", "v7_operation_sever_tartu_study", "v7_operation_sever_anders_ipn" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1951, "end": 1951, "yearLabel": "31 March–1 April 1951", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "af-cote-ivoire-migrant-land-expulsions", "name": "Land-law exclusion and migrant ejection in Tabou", "region": "Africa", "dates": "1998", "extent": "local", "fit": "contextual", "story": "Alfred Babo describes the 1998 Ivoirian Land Code as tying land rights to nationality and indigeneity as land became scarcer in the south-west plantation frontier. In the article’s Tabou example, Burkinabé migrants were ejected from land. The abstract does not identify the physical ejector or quantify the ejection.", "displaced": [ "Burkinabé migrants ejected from land in the article’s bounded Tabou example; no person, household or land-area quantity is given" ], "settlers": [ "The abstract discusses migrants, foreigners and descendants within land-law exclusion, but it does not establish a distinct incoming settler population for this bounded ejection unit." ], "evidence": "Babo’s Cambridge Core English abstract supports the 1998 Land Code, south-west plantation-frontier and land-scarcity context, nationality/autochthony framing, and a conflict in Tabou in which Burkinabé migrants were ejected from land.", "contested": "The full article body is access-gated. The abstract supports a minimal legal-policy and concrete-ejection unit only; its interpretation remains attributed to Babo.", "note": "No physical ejector roster, event quantity, later endpoint, wider-crisis account, death, property outcome, destination, return, compensation, transfer or settlement claim is made.", "placeGloss": "Tabou in south-west Côte d’Ivoire is the only bounded event locality established by the reviewed abstract.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The reviewed abstract identifies Tabou and the south-west plantation frontier but does not establish a reliable origin, destination, route, point or event polygon.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_cote_ivoire_land_expulsions_babo_2013" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1998, "end": 2011, "yearLabel": "1998", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "modern-bulgarian-turk-forced-migration", "name": "Bulgarian assimilation campaign and forced migration of Turks", "region": "Southeastern Europe", "dates": "1984–1989", "extent": "national and cross-border", "fit": "contextual", "story": "Muzaffer Kutlay describes a state-led assimilation campaign against Turks in Bulgaria that intensified in winter 1984–1985 through forced renaming and restrictions on cultural and religious practice. After protests in early 1989, the Zhivkov government opened the border and the Ministry of Internal Affairs administered passport forms; the article reports that more than 340,000 people were forced to migrate to Turkey by the end of August 1989. After the Communist regime collapsed, the article reports that almost 40 percent—registered as 133,272—later returned voluntarily to Bulgaria.", "displaced": [ "More than 340,000 people reported by Kutlay as forced to migrate from Bulgaria to Turkey by the end of August 1989", "Almost 40 percent, registered as 133,272, reported as later voluntary returns to Bulgaria; this is a nested outcome frame within the departure cohort, not an additional displacement count" ], "settlers": [ "The reviewed article establishes forced migration and later voluntary return. It does not establish a distinct incoming settler population for this bounded case." ], "evidence": "Kutlay author-accepted manuscript, especially physical pp. 1–3 and 9–16, for the 1984–1989 campaign, bounded state roles, summer 1989 departure frame and later return frame.", "contested": "The article also summarizes later return as over one-third. “Over one-third,” almost 40 percent and registered 133,272 are alternate or nested descriptions of the same later-return phenomenon; they are not additive and do not establish a calculated net-displacement total.", "note": "Earlier migration waves and repression of Muslim Pomaks remain outside this event. No death total, property or settlement total, universal motive, precise route, unique-person total, net displaced population or complete return history is claimed.", "placeGloss": "Bulgaria and Turkey identify origin and destination countries, but the reviewed evidence does not establish one precise path or border-crossing route.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The article establishes forced movement from Bulgaria to Turkey and later voluntary return to Bulgaria, but it does not provide reliable event coordinates, a single origin, a precise destination, a route line or an event polygon.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_bulgarian_turks_forced_migration_kutlay_2017" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1984, "end": 1989, "yearLabel": "1984–1989", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "modern-moldova-soviet-deportations", "name": "Soviet deportations from Moldova", "region": "Eastern Europe and Soviet interior", "dates": "June 1941; July 1949; 1 April 1951", "extent": "three nationwide deportation operations", "fit": "contextual", "story": "The National Museum of History of Moldova identifies three nationwide deportation operations in June 1941, July 1949, and on 1 April 1951. The museum attributes about 60,000 deportees to the three operations collectively.", "displaced": [ "About 60,000 deportees attributed by the museum to the three operations collectively; this is an approximate combined frame, not a wave-by-wave or additive total" ], "settlers": [ "The reviewed source does not establish a distinct incoming settler population for this bounded event." ], "evidence": "National Museum of History of Moldova exhibition page, main description of the June 1941, July 1949, and 1 April 1951 nationwide deportation operations and its museum-attributed combined estimate.", "contested": "The source provides no allocation among the three operations, household count, cohort definition, or unique-person guarantee for the approximate combined frame.", "note": "No precise implementing authority, universal destination, return, mortality, confiscation, land transfer, settlement outcome, or route is claimed. Separate 1920–1951 conviction, death-sentence, and prison-death figures are excluded.", "placeGloss": "The source establishes nationwide deportation from Soviet Moldova but does not establish one reliable destination or route.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The reviewed source establishes a nationwide Moldova origin frame but does not provide reliable event coordinates, a universal destination, a route line, or an event polygon.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_moldova_soviet_deportations_national_museum" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1941, "end": 1951, "yearLabel": "1941–1951", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "modern-philippine-american-reconcentration", "name": "Philippine–American War reconcentration", "region": "Southeast Asia", "dates": "1899–1902", "extent": "nationally bounded source frame", "fit": "contextual", "story": "During the Philippine–American War of 1899–1902, the U.S. Army issued reconcentration orders. Christina Twomey describes the orders as intended to cut support for guerrilla forces resisting U.S. colonial rule. Villagers and rural populations were confined in bounded protection zones, where their movement was strictly controlled.", "displaced": [ "Villagers and rural populations confined in bounded protection zones under U.S. Army reconcentration orders; the reviewed source provides no population quantity" ], "settlers": [ "The reviewed source does not establish a distinct incoming settler population for this bounded event." ], "evidence": "Christina Twomey’s Monash University publication record and full abstract for the peer-reviewed Brill chapter, limited to the 1899–1902 orders, actor, affected cohorts, bounded zones, controlled movement, national Philippines frame, and attributed purpose.", "contested": "The accessible abstract provides no person, household, camp, zone, displacement, or death quantity and no subnational locality.", "note": "No property, land, crop destruction, settlement, hunger, disease, mortality, origin, destination, route, or universal claim is made. A later statutory continuation remains outside this event.", "placeGloss": "The reviewed source establishes the Philippines at national scale but does not identify a reliable origin, destination, route, or event polygon.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The reviewed source supports national Philippines geography only and provides no reliable event coordinates, origins, destinations, route line, or event polygon.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_philippine_american_reconcentration_twomey_2022" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1899, "end": 1902, "yearLabel": "1899–1902", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "ca-soviet-kalmyk-deportation", "name": "Soviet deportation of the Kalmyks", "region": "Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia", "dates": "1943–1957", "extent": "dispersed multi-region deportation and restricted-exile frame", "fit": "contextual", "story": "On 27–28 December 1943, Soviet decrees liquidated the Kalmyk ASSR and initiated collective deportation. NKVD and NKGB bodies organized the operation, and an NKVD internal-troops regiment carried it out; later branches removed Kalmyks from neighboring regions and redirected military personnel in 1944. The reviewed article gives nearly 120,000 as an overall estimate and separately reports Beria’s frame of 93,139 people in 26,359 families loaded on 46 trains. In March 1956 special-settlement registration and surveillance ended without restoring property or permitting return. Measures in January 1957 restored autonomy and allowed residence and registration in former places, followed by a qualitative majority return later in the 1950s.", "displaced": [ "Nearly 120,000 as the article’s approximate overall deportation frame", "93,139 people in 26,359 families loaded on 46 trains in Beria’s separate reported frame; not additive to the overall estimate or destination allocations" ], "settlers": [ "The reviewed source does not establish a distinct incoming settler population for this bounded event." ], "evidence": "Elza-Bair Guchinova’s article, physical pp. 3 and 23–24 with supporting context on physical pp. 1–8 and 20–25, supports the dated phases, differentiated Soviet roles, attributed nonadditive frames, restrictions, return authorization, and qualitative later return.", "contested": "The approximate overall estimate, Beria loading/family/train report, destination allocations, military cohorts, annual infant figures, and qualitative return statement have different scopes and cannot be added, reconciled, or converted into a unique-person total or rate.", "note": "Transport and locality testimony supports deaths and lethal conditions but no overall mortality total; the frozen summary’s roughly-half-died claim is excluded. March 1956 did not itself authorize return, and no complete or universal return outcome is claimed.", "placeGloss": "The source identifies dispersed origins and destination regions but no single route, universal destination, reliable event coordinates, or polygon.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The reviewed evidence establishes a dispersed multi-region deportation pattern but not one reliable origin, destination, route line, settlement point, or event polygon.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_kalmyk_deportation_guchinova_2007" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1943, "end": 1957, "yearLabel": "1943–1957", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "modern-isaaq-clearance-northern-somalia", "name": "Isaaq civilian clearance in northern Somalia", "region": "Horn of Africa", "dates": "1988–1991", "extent": "Hargeisa attack and broader Somaliland war frame", "fit": "contextual", "story": "After the Somali National Movement captured parts of Hargeisa in 1988, Somali government forces bombed the city and strafed columns of fleeing civilians. Human Rights Watch reports that, as Isaaq civilians fled, the government systematically repopulated their communities with civilians from other clans. HRW attributes tens of thousands of civilian deaths across Somaliland and at least one million people driven from their homes to the broader war. By 1991 Hargeisa was devastated and the Somali government had collapsed.", "displaced": [ "At least one million people driven from their homes in HRW’s broad Somaliland war frame; uniqueness, stock-flow status, destinations, and an Isaaq-only or Hargeisa-only allocation are unresolved" ], "settlers": [ "HRW reports government repopulation of communities with civilians from other clans as Isaaq civilians fled; no settler count, universal scope, formal program, land-title transfer, or durable outcome is established" ], "evidence": "Human Rights Watch, “The Past as Prologue” in “Hostages to Peace,” retained historical section lines 438–461 and surrounding text, limited to the 1988 Hargeisa attack, Isaaq civilian flight and repopulation, broad attributed war frames, and 1991 endpoint context.", "contested": "The death and displacement quantities are broad attributed Somaliland war frames, not exact, additive, unique-person, Hargeisa-only, or Isaaq-only totals. Early-1980s repression is context outside the bounded onset.", "note": "No return frame, Ethiopia or Djibouti route, property total, title transfer, compensation, land share, durable settlement outcome, or universal claim about all Isaaq, communities, northern Somalis, or government units is made.", "placeGloss": "The source supports Hargeisa as the specific 1988 site and Somaliland as the broad war geography, but no reliable origin-destination route or event polygon.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The reviewed evidence identifies Hargeisa and a broader Somaliland frame but does not establish reliable origins, destinations, route coordinates, or an event polygon.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_isaaq_clearance_hrw_2009" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1988, "end": 1991, "yearLabel": "1988–1991", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "modern-equatorial-guinea-macias-exile", "name": "Macías Nguema’s dictatorship and mass exile from Equatorial Guinea", "region": "Central Africa", "dates": "1968–1979", "extent": "national dictatorship and dispersed international exile frame", "fit": "contextual", "story": "After Equatorial Guinea became independent in 1968, President Francisco Macías Nguema concentrated power in a single-party state. Delmas Tsafack describes decrees that weakened constitutional limits, a party youth and paramilitary apparatus, arbitrary detention, political killings and summary executions. Political opponents, intellectuals, officials and activists were among the first to flee. As the economy deteriorated, a wider group also left in search of safety and workable living conditions. The regime treated departure itself as subversion, making return dangerous.\n\nThis was not one administratively counted removal. Tsafack distinguishes people who fled during the dictatorship, students and civil servants already abroad who became unable to return safely, and children later born in exile. Cameroon and Gabon received many refugees; Nigeria and Spain were also destinations. Those country names describe a dispersed exile, not a universal route or destination for every person.\n\nThe available estimates describe different populations and moments. Tsafack cites an exile organization that put the number in Cameroon at 40,000 in 1978. He also cites an estimate of about 125,000 Equatoguineans outside the country in 1979, described as roughly one third of the population. A separate 1978 aid program reached 2,011 families, about 7,060 people. These figures are attributed stocks or program counts; they are not added into a new total.\n\nCameroon, international agencies and church organizations provided food, housing, schooling, work and local-integration assistance. Some refugees worked for sugar companies around Akonolinga and Mbandjock. Earlier writers and Equatoguinean exile organizations alleged that some plantation work was compulsory and abusive, but Tsafack concludes that those allegations are difficult to substantiate from the evidence he examined. That controversy remains separate from the state repression that produced the exile.\n\nMacías was overthrown in 1979. Relations with Cameroon then eased, and the two governments coordinated the repatriation of some refugees. The source gives no total return figure and does not establish that exile, property loss or separation ended for everyone. It also does not identify an incoming population replacing those who left Equatorial Guinea.", "displaced": [ "Equatoguinean political opponents, intellectuals, officials, students and other residents driven abroad by repression and economic collapse; people already abroad and unable to return are a distinct cohort" ], "settlers": [ "No incoming settler population is established by the source" ], "evidence": "Tsafack's complete article supports the regime, cohort, destination and host-response distinctions; its mediated estimates remain attributed and nonadditive.", "contested": "The article mediates several estimates through opposition organizations and earlier writers. The 1976, 1978 and 1979 figures have different dates, locations and denominators and are not reconciled. Plantation-compulsion allegations remain disputed. No unique displacement or death total, universal route or destination, general property outcome, complete return rate or incoming settler population is established.", "note": "The frozen statistical profile is preserved unchanged. The article supports lethal state coercion and mass exile but does not independently recertify the profile values. Nigerian contract workers in Equatorial Guinea, Cameroonian plantation employment and the outgoing Equatoguinean exile are separate cohorts. Geometry remains unknown, structured impact remains unassessed, and this packet creates no structured flight note.", "placeGloss": "Cameroon, Gabon, Nigeria and Spain are receiving-country context for a dispersed exile, not a universal destination distribution or mapped itinerary.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The reviewed source does not establish individual origins, border crossings, destinations, route lines, settlement points or an event polygon.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_equatorial_guinea_macias_exile_tsafack_2017" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1968, "end": 1979, "yearLabel": "1968–1979", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "modern-sierra-leone-civil-war-displacement", "name": "Civil-war displacement within and from Sierra Leone", "region": "West Africa", "dates": "1991–2002", "extent": "national conflict with recurrent internal and cross-border displacement", "fit": "contextual", "story": "Sierra Leone’s civil war ran from 1991 to 2002. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission describes a conflict in which attacks and threats repeatedly uprooted civilians, while killing, pillage and property destruction made many homes and communities unsafe. The commission identifies the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) as the principal driver in its history of the war, while also recording serious violations by the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council, government forces and allied militias. Responsibility for every episode therefore cannot be assigned to one faction.\n\nFlight was recurrent rather than a single outward journey. People moved within Sierra Leone and across borders, especially into Guinea and Liberia. Families were separated. The commission’s chapter on children documents children becoming internally displaced or refugees elsewhere in West Africa; that child-specific evidence is not generalized into a count for the whole civilian population.\n\nReturn did not always end the danger. The commission records refugees forced back into Sierra Leone and exposed to renewed abuse, and civilians could be displaced again as control and violence shifted. This case therefore keeps departure, return and renewed displacement distinct. It does not draw one route for a nationwide, changing process.\n\nThe commission’s statement database recorded forced displacement more often than any other coded violation and separately recorded killing and property destruction. Those are counts of statements received from a non-random process, not a census or probability sample. They cannot be converted into national totals, added to refugee or internally displaced person stocks, or used as a population severity ranking. The reviewed sources establish recurrent coercive displacement and destruction, but not a universal blocked-return result, a single durable land transfer, or an incoming replacement population.", "displaced": [ "Sierra Leonean civilians repeatedly driven from homes and communities within the country and across borders, including into Guinea and Liberia" ], "settlers": [ "RUF as principal driver; AFRC, government forces and allied militias also committed violations; no incoming replacement population is established" ], "evidence": "The Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission supports the 1991–2002 boundary, actor qualifications and recurrent flight; its statement database is non-random and supplies violation records rather than population totals.", "contested": "No exact national displacement total, additive refugee-and-IDP total, universal itinerary, complete return rate, universal blocked-return outcome, durable land-transfer result or incoming replacement population is established. Child-specific evidence is not generalized to all civilians, and statement counts are not treated as population estimates.", "note": "The exact frozen eight-trait profile and family are preserved unchanged. Killing, property destruction, internal displacement, cross-border refuge, return and renewed displacement remain separate outcomes. Structured impact is unassessed, geometry is unknown, and this packet creates no structured flight note.", "placeGloss": "Sierra Leone is the regional camera anchor. Guinea and Liberia are documented receiving-country context, not endpoints assigned to every displaced person.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The reviewed sources describe recurrent nationwide and cross-border movement but do not establish one representative origin, destination, route line, settlement point or event polygon.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_sierra_leone_trc_volume3a_2004", "v7_sierra_leone_trc_volume3b_children_2004", "v7_sierra_leone_trc_statistical_appendix_2004" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1991, "end": 2002, "yearLabel": "1991–2002", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "prospective-adf-attack-displacement-beni-and-nearby-ituri-january-march-2021", "name": "ADF attack-driven displacement from Beni Territory and nearby Ituri villages, January–March 2021", "region": "Central Africa", "dates": "January–19 March 2021", "extent": "Beni Territory in North Kivu and only nearby Ituri villages directly included in the same reported episode", "fit": "contextual", "story": "UNHCR reported on 19 March 2021 that attacks since January, blamed on the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), had killed nearly 200 people, injured dozens and displaced an estimated 40,000 people in Beni Territory in North Kivu and nearby villages in Ituri. It said the ADF had allegedly raided 25 villages, burned dozens of houses and kidnapped more than 70 people. These are qualified attributions from the briefing, not findings that assign every incident to the group. The same source reported that the attacks were associated with retaliation against military operations, searches for food and medicine, and accusations that communities had shared information about ADF positions.\n\nThe estimated 40,000 describes the recent wave observed from January through 19 March. It is kept separate from about 100,000 people who were already displaced in Beni before that wave. It is also separate from 465 deaths attributed to ADF attacks during 2020, later provincial stocks and flows, displacement attributed to other armed groups, and later ADF activity. None of those figures is added to the 40,000 or treated as a count of unique households or people followed across time.\n\nFor people displaced during March, UNHCR named Oicha, Beni and Butembo as places of flight and said many travelled by motorbike. The source described the majority as women and children and said some men stayed behind to protect property, exposing themselves to further danger. That pattern is not generalized to every household, and the named places do not establish one route used by everyone. The briefing described severe shortages of shelter, food, water and health care after flight.\n\nThis case ends at the briefing’s observation cutoff, not at the end of ADF activity. The reviewed source establishes attack-driven departure and the burning of houses, but it does not establish return timing, title transfer, permanent vacancy, replacement settlement, governance change, labor incorporation or a durable demographic outcome. Those questions remain unknown. Later ADF operations and other Ituri displacement belong to separate periods or event units unless a future person-level review links them.", "displaced": [ "An estimated 40,000 civilians displaced during the January–19 March 2021 wave from Beni Territory and directly included nearby Ituri villages; the pre-existing Beni displacement population is excluded" ], "settlers": [ "Attacks were blamed on or attributed to the ADF; the source does not establish an incoming replacement population, and attribution remains qualified" ], "evidence": "The complete official UNHCR briefing body supports the observation window, qualified attribution, reported attacks, house burning, kidnapping, named March destinations and the estimated recent displacement wave.", "contested": "The briefing does not establish attribution for every incident, a deduplicated longitudinal count, a universal household pattern or route, return timing, title transfer, permanent vacancy, replacement settlement, governance change, labor incorporation or durable demographic outcome.", "note": "All 60 frozen score cells remain blank and all 60 frozen N/A cells remain U. Governance and law, labor and economy, and demography and durability remain explicit evidence gaps. Geometry is unknown, structured impact is unassessed, and this packet creates no incoming-flight note.", "placeGloss": "Beni Territory in North Kivu is the regional anchor. Nearby Ituri villages, Oicha, Beni and Butembo are source-named orientation only and do not create a route or event geometry.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The source names a territory, nearby villages and three places of flight but does not provide village identities, complete origins, one universal itinerary, coordinates, a route line, settlement points or an event polygon.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_adf_beni_ituri_jan_mar_2021_unhcr" ], "periods": [ { "start": 2021, "end": 2021, "yearLabel": "January–19 March 2021", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ] }, { "id": "zanzibar-unit-1964-1987-property-confiscation-redistribution", "name": "Zanzibar revolutionary property confiscation and land redistribution", "region": "East Africa", "dates": "1964–September 1987", "extent": "Published confiscation-order evidence and documented land administration across Unguja and Pemba; the dataset is incomplete and does not delimit every taking", "fit": "unassessed_pending_separate_admission_and_taxonomy_review", "story": "Presidential Decree No. 8 of 1964 empowered the Zanzibar state to seize immovable property in the national interest without compensation, while its text included an undue-hardship proviso. The 1965 Public Lands Decree placed land under government guardianship, and the 1966 Land Distribution Decree enabled confiscated property to be merged and distributed. The reviewed study also documents takings outside published orders and procedures that were followed unevenly, so the formal decrees do not describe every seizure.\n\nJoireman and Verne assembled published English- and Swahili-language Gazette confiscation orders from 1964 through the latest order they recorded, in September 1987. Their explicitly incomplete dataset contains 1,565 properties: 990 recorded in the 1960s, 527 in the 1970s, and 48 in the 1980s; 1,195 were on Unguja, 363 on Pemba, and seven could not be located. The separately reported 544 properties for 1965 are included within the 1,565. These are property units, not people, households, orders, acres, departures, or a census of all confiscation.\n\nThe recorded takings included houses and land in urban and rural areas across Unguja and Pemba. Arab and Asian owners were primary targets in the records discussed, and South Asian names made up more than half of the 1970s confiscations, but the study states that confiscation was not limited to one ethnic group. Some properties were taken after owners fled; others were confiscated whether or not their owners had left, and some Asian owners were made homeless. Confiscation therefore cannot be used as a proxy for expulsion, route, exile, or a single ethnic victim population.\n\nRedistribution is measured separately. From 1965 to 1972, more than 22,000 families received three-acre rights-of-occupancy covering about 70,000 acres. Those beneficiary and acreage measures are not counts of dispossessed owners or refugees and do not establish incoming replacement settlement. The authors found 26 revocation orders and one official cancellation between 1964 and 1987; some property was returned formally or informally, while other families continued to seek restitution decades later. September 1987 is the latest recorded published order in an incomplete dataset, not proof that confiscation or its consequences ended then. The source does not establish universal confiscation, universal permanent loss, a common route or return pattern, or one-for-one replacement.", "affected": [ "Owners of confiscated houses and land across Unguja and Pemba; Arab and Asian owners were primary targets in discussed records, but confiscation was not limited to one ethnic group" ], "actors": [ "Zanzibar Revolutionary Government and its land, confiscation and distribution institutions" ], "beneficiaries": [ "More than 22,000 families received three-acre rights-of-occupancy during 1965–1972; this is a redistribution measure and does not establish incoming replacement settlement" ], "evidence": "The complete Joireman and Verne article supports the legal instruments, incomplete published-order dataset, property-unit totals and distribution, affected-property descriptions, redistribution measures, and limited revocations through the latest recorded September 1987 order.", "contested": "The source does not establish a complete confiscation census, one universal ethnic victim population, universal confiscation or permanent loss, a count of unique affected people or households, departure from confiscation, route, return migration, replacement settlement, or an end to consequences in September 1987.", "note": "All 60 raw score cells, N/A types, nine-factor projections, family assignment, geometry, structured impact, flight composition and population-scale indicators remain independently unassessed. No field is inherited from the frozen parent.", "geometryStatus": "unassessed", "geometryExplanation": "The article provides island-level and mapped property-order evidence, but this preparation does not convert it into event geometry. No route, point set, polygon, or replacement pattern is proposed.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_joireman_verne_2025_zanzibar_property_confiscation" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1964, "end": 1987, "yearLabel": "1964–September 1987", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "endpointGuard": "First confiscation decree to latest recorded published order in an incomplete dataset; not the end of all confiscation or consequences." } ] }, { "id": "modern-libya-tawergha-expulsion", "name": "Expulsion, partial return, and continuing displacement of Tawergha residents", "region": "North Africa", "dates": "2011–2025", "extent": "Tawergha and source-documented displacement and return contexts within Libya; some flight abroad is documented, but complete destinations, routes and geometry are unknown", "fit": "source-supported bounded case", "story": "In August 2011, Misrata-based armed groups attacked Tawergha. An OHCHR investigation reported that the town population, estimated at 42,600, was displaced to other parts of Libya or fled abroad. It documented murder, torture and cruel treatment of Tawerghans by Misrata-based armed groups and reported that the town was subsequently destroyed. OHCHR described retaliation for perceived support for the Qadhafi government and alleged abuses by some Tawerghans, while saying discrimination against dark-skinned Libyans may also have fuelled the actions. Those contextual findings do not assign wartime conduct, allegiance or a racial identity to every resident.\n\nReturn remained blocked for years. In June 2017 the Government of National Accord ratified a Misrata–Tawergha agreement allowing displaced residents to return, and the UN urged a prompt, dignified, safe and unconditional return. Permission and an agreement were not completed return. Later sources document partial returns rather than one clean reversal of the expulsion.\n\nIOM reported 17,252 people displaced from Tawergha across more than 30 municipalities at the end of 2022, including 6,425 people in informal collective sites in eastern Libya. By mid-2023 it reported 15,000 people, or 3,000 families, returned to Tawergha, while close to 17,000 internally displaced people, or 3,400 families, remained displaced. These are dated measurements from different rounds and methods. They are not added to the 2011 estimate or treated as a complete accounting of unique people.\n\nUN Women fieldwork in 2024 and UN reporting for 2025 describe damaged or uninhabitable homes, reconstruction costs, infrastructure and service gaps, safety concerns, unresolved property disputes, and mixed choices about return or continued residence elsewhere. A 2025 UN results report still described a smaller residual Tawergha displacement caseload with protection and service gaps. The evidence therefore supports expulsion, years of blocked return, later partial return, and residual displacement through 2025. It does not establish event-wide property seizure or title transfer, settler replacement, completed compensation, completed return, or conditions after 2025.", "displaced": [ "Residents of Tawergha displaced in 2011; later return and residual-displacement statuses are kept as dated, partially overlapping observations" ], "settlers": [ "Misrata-based armed groups carried out the original attack and expulsion; later governmental and local authorities appear only in agreement, return and reintegration processes; no incoming replacement population is established" ], "evidence": "Six official full bodies support the August 2011 attack and mass displacement, town destruction, years of blocked return, later partial returns, and residual displacement and barriers through the 2025 reporting period.", "contested": "The reviewed bodies do not establish a universal racial identity or wartime allegiance, additive person count, complete route, event-wide property seizure or title transfer, incoming settler replacement, completed compensation, completed return or durable solution, or conditions after 2025.", "note": "The outcome family is decided de novo as expulsion or flight without replacement. All eight factor decisions are source-bound qualitative decisions; no inherited or newly invented numeric point is displayed because the accepted packet does not provide a new 60-cell coding and projection. Impact and geometry remain unassessed. The post-2025 endpoint remains held.", "placeGloss": "Tawergha is the event anchor. More than 30 municipalities and some flight abroad describe dispersal, not one universal route or complete destination set.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "Sources name Tawergha and dispersed locations but do not establish complete origins, destinations, one representative itinerary, coordinates, a route line, event polygon or replacement-settlement geometry.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_tawergha_unhcr_2017", "v7_tawergha_ohchr_2016", "v7_tawergha_iom_2023", "v7_tawergha_unwomen_2025", "v7_tawergha_un_profile_2025", "v7_tawergha_un_results_2025" ], "periods": [ { "start": 2011, "end": 2025, "yearLabel": "2011–2025", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true, "endpointGuard": "PRECISE_ENDPOINT_HOLD_POST_2025_TAWERGHA_RETURN_PROPERTY_AND_DISPLACEMENT_STATUS_UNVERIFIED" } ], "navDestinations": [ "Middle East & North Africa" ] }, { "id": "modern-first-congo-war-refugee-camp-clearance", "name": "First Congo War and destruction of refugee camps in eastern Zaire", "region": "Great Lakes Africa", "dates": "1996–1997", "extent": "Eastern Zaire refugee camps and source-documented pursuit, flight and return contexts within the frozen1996–1997 unit; no complete route or destination set", "fit": "source-supported bounded case", "story": "In 1996, AFDL forces and their Rwandan allies attacked refugee camps in eastern Zaire. This area is now part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Most refugees in the Uvira and Goma camps were unarmed civilians. Some camps also held armed groups, including former Rwandan army members and Interahamwe militia.\n\nAt Mugunga on 15 November 1996, AFDL and Rwandan forces ordered refugees to return to Rwanda. Other refugees had chosen to return. Still others fled west through Zaire. These movements followed different routes and took place under different conditions. They cannot all be classed as forced returns or voluntary returns.\n\nThe UN Mapping Report records killings of refugees and Congolese civilians. It also reports killings of local people who hid or helped refugees. Pursuing forces blocked aid in some areas. Refugees died from hunger, illness and exhaustion. In some incidents, promises of return or aid drew people to places where they were killed.\n\nCamp attacks and later pursuit continued into 1997. Camps were burned or dismantled, and refugees moved between sites or into forests. The sources do not establish a single death toll, unique displacement total or share forced to return. Camp occupancy does not prove property ownership. Title transfers and settlement by a replacement population remain unknown.\n\nIn 2010, the Mapping Report said that some acts could support a finding of genocide if proved. It also discussed competing explanations and partly voluntary returns. This was a conditional legal assessment, not a court ruling. The case covers 1996–1997; later events are separate context.", "displaced": [ "Rwandan civilian refugees, including Hutu refugees; Burundian refugees in documented companion cohorts; Congolese civilians at documented incidents. Armed members remain a distinct group." ], "settlers": [ "AFDL and Rwandan allied forces attacked and pursued refugees; other armed groups appear only at source-specific incidents. No incoming replacement population is established." ], "evidence": "OHCHR’s 2010 Mapping Report documents alleged incidents under its reasonable-suspicion method. Attacks, killings, deprivation, flight and differentiated returns are source-located.", "contested": "Unique cumulative deaths, displacement and forced-return shares are unknown. No blanket combatant identity, collective guilt, universal return category, formal land title transfer or settler replacement. Genocide discussion is conditional and attributed to the 2010 report; no present-day judgment claim.", "note": "The frozen family and all eight traits are retained exactly for display, without new coding. Incident estimates, repeated camp stocks and returns are not added or subtracted. Note 300 contains a 1997/2009 citation-year conflict; the corresponding UNHCR body was not read. Paragraph 252 chronology remains qualified. The frozen 2009 UNHCR link is not used as contemporary event evidence.", "placeGloss": "Great Lakes Africa is the source-region label. Named camps and pursuit sites do not establish one complete itinerary.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The accepted source account describes multiple cohorts, camp attacks, flight and returns. It does not establish complete movement endpoints, a representative route, exact coordinates or an event footprint. No geometry is inferred from a route schematic.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "v7_congo_ohchr_mapping_fr_2010" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1996, "end": 1997, "yearLabel": "1996–1997", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "impact": null, "navDestinations": [ "Africa" ] }, { "id": "modern-korean-war-civilian-displacement", "name": "Korean War civilian flight and permanent division", "region": "East Asia", "dates": "1950–1953", "extent": "Korean civilian flight, evacuation, constrained return and bounded resettlement during 1950–1953; cohorts and routes differ, and complete origins, destinations and geometry remain unknown", "fit": "source-supported bounded case", "story": "The Korean War drove civilians from their homes in more than one wave. In summer 1950, many South Korean civilians fled south as North Korean forces advanced. In winter 1950–1951, refugees from North Korea and South Korean evacuees formed different groups.\n\nSouth Korean officials first gave evacuation help to political leaders and foreigners. As fighting neared Seoul, other civilians moved farther south. Early destruction of the Han River bridges and later destruction at Waegwan killed civilians, trapped people, and blocked escape.\n\nThe winter retreat caused another wave as northern civilians fled bombing and pressure to join armed forces. South Korean civilians left before the renewed advance. Some people traveled by sea or rail, while many walked. Hŭngnam, island camps, and specific rail trips show routes for specific groups. They do not describe one route for all civilians.\n\nReturn differed by group, and some rural people in the South returned sooner. Return to Seoul stayed delayed and controlled. Refugees from the North and others who were unable to reach former homes resettled in South Korea. By August 1953, many migrants from North to South tended to settle in new areas. These areas lay near the demilitarized zone, military sites, and small or medium cities.\n\nRelief and rebuilding did not end these differences. Camps, homes, short-term work, and aid rules changed by place, time, and agency, so their records cannot be joined into one total. The source supports flight, limits on return, and different places of residence. It does not show that all civilians stayed away for good. It also gives no general proof of title loss, one death toll, or exact routes.", "displaced": [ "Korean civilians displaced in distinct summer 1950 and winter 1950–1951 waves, including South Korean internally displaced people and evacuees and refugees who fled from North Korea" ], "settlers": [ "North Korean, South Korean, Chinese, United States and United Nations Command forces shaped advances, retreats and flight; South Korean and United Nations authorities also organized or restricted evacuation, transport, relief and return; no incoming replacement population is established" ], "evidence": "Kim’s 2010 synthesis separates summer internal flight, winter northern refugee and southern evacuation movements, later return controls, relocation and residence outcomes. The source is mediated and its damaged numeric tables are not used.", "contested": "Unique movers, cohort shares, deaths, complete routes and destinations remain unknown. The evidence does not establish universal permanent nonreturn, event-wide title loss, forced labor, incoming settler replacement or precise geometry.", "note": "The frozen outcome family and all eight trait values are carried forward without reinterpretation. “Permanent division” applies only to bounded cross-border separation and not to every South Korean evacuee or internally displaced person. No damaged table value is transcribed or used.", "placeGloss": "Seoul, Waegwan, Hŭngnam, island camps and the demilitarized-zone settlement pattern identify source-specific places. They do not form one universal route or a complete destination set.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "The source describes several civilian cohorts, routes, controls and residence outcomes. It does not establish complete endpoints, exact coordinates, one representative route or an event footprint.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "modern_korean_war_displacement" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1950, "end": 1953, "yearLabel": "1950–1953", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "impact": null }, { "id": "pacific-tongan-conquest-lau-fiji", "name": "Maʻafu’s conquest and land reorganization in Lau", "region": "Pacific & Oceania", "fit": "partial", "dates": "1852–1869", "extent": "unknown", "periods": [ { "start": 1852, "end": 1854, "yearLabel": "December 1852–1854", "label": "Moala campaigns", "note": "Chiefly submission, property removal and changed authority in Moala, Matuku and Totoya." }, { "start": 1854, "end": 1855, "yearLabel": "1854–1855", "label": "Vanuabalavu control", "note": "Religious war, control and establishment at Lomaloma; no inferred mass settlement in 1854." }, { "start": 1855, "end": 1869, "yearLabel": "1855–15 February 1869", "label": "Land allotment and chiefdom", "note": "Measured allotments, tax and tribute relations; formal consolidation in 1869." } ], "story": "Maʻafu's forces began their Moala campaigns in December 1852. War and changes in faith brought chiefs under new rule. The campaigns affected Moala, Matuku, and Totoya. Spurway describes property taken to Lakeba and changes in chiefly rule. These accounts do not show that all residents left.\n\nReligious war also changed control of Vanuabalavu. Maʻafu took control and based himself at Lomaloma in 1855. The sources do not show mass Tongan settlement there in 1854. Later land records and local accounts describe changes in rule and land control.\n\nThe later system divided land into measured plots and tied access to taxes. France describes plots for adult men who paid tax. Established Tongan residents and warriors who stayed also received plots. Pauwels describes fertile coastal plots and original owners who lost control. The accounts do not show that all land was seized or all residents expelled.\n\nThe agreement of 15 February 1869 formed the Chiefdom of Lau. It defined rule, tax, and tribute ties among the named islands. This date marks the formal chiefdom, not an end to land disputes. Many residents and chiefs remained under the changed system.\n\nThis case follows one event in three phases. Removals at Mago and Munia remain separate leads for further work. They do not supply this event's removal evidence. The number displaced, death share, and full land loss remain unknown. The map shows regional context because exact event geometry is unknown.", "displaced": [ "Residents, chiefs and original landholders of the named Lauan tracts; no generalized parent-level expulsion is established." ], "settlers": [ "Maʻafu and his Tongan campaign following; established Tongan residents and warriors who stayed and received land." ], "note": "Three phases form one parent event. Mago and Munia/Yanuyanu removals remain separate. The profile uses the accepted fixed mapping; it does not place this case in the active statistical release.", "sources": [ "lau_spurway_2015", "lau_france_1966", "lau_pauwels_2019", "lau_british_commissioners_1874" ], "origins": [], "targets": [], "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "Named islands and land processes are documented. Exact source-bound event points, routes and footprints are not established in this application.", "impact": null, "contested": false }, { "id": "medieval-almoravid-mozarab-deportation-1126", "name": "Almoravid deportation of Andalusi Christians to the Maghreb", "region": "Europe / North Africa", "dates": "1126", "extent": "Named Andalusi Christian groups in an autumn 1126 removal order; Seville is best documented, with Granada and Córdoba qualified. Destinations and routes are incomplete.", "fit": "source-supported bounded case", "story": "In autumn 1126, the Almoravid emir ordered the removal of documented Christian groups from al-Andalus. The emir had sought a jurist’s advice. The record names groups from Seville, Granada, and Córdoba. It does not show that every Christian in those cities was removed.\n\nFamilies and church leaders were among those sent south. Some people from Seville went to Meknes. The sources do not give one route or one destination for all groups. They also do not give a sound mover count.\n\nArmed men chased some people from Seville. After removal, some owners asked to sell property back home. Legal replies set rules for those sales. A church and its endowment also changed hands in one recorded case. These records do not show that all Christian property was seized.\n\nEvidence from 1127 shows the aftermath of the order. It does not extend this case past 1126. A reported movement in 1138 is held as a separate event. Northbound flight tied to Alfonso I is also outside this case.\n\nThe sources do not give the share removed, the death share, or a return rate. They do not prove total Christian extinction or a replacement settlement. Places are kept as text because the full routes and endpoints are not known.", "displaced": [ "Documented groups of Andalusi Christians, including families and church leaders; not every Christian in each named city." ], "settlers": [ "No incoming replacement population is established for this bounded case." ], "evidence": "Specialist studies reconstruct the emiral order, armed enforcement, post-removal sale requests and legal procedures, and a specific church and endowment change from legal and narrative records.", "contested": "The exact mover count, removed share, death share, return rate, route set, destination set, custody, duration, blanket confiscation, total extinction, and replacement settlement are not established.", "note": "The case ends in 1126. Evidence from 1127 is aftermath. A reported 1138 movement remains a separate hold. Juristic advice is distinct from the emir’s order. The cited studies share some underlying legal traditions and are not counted as independent witnesses.", "placeGloss": "Europe / North Africa is a broad source-region label. Named places remain text context and do not create coordinates, a route, or a single destination.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "geometryExplanation": "Accepted sources name source communities and some destinations, but coverage is unequal and no complete or representative route is established. No map primitive is proposed.", "origins": [], "targets": [], "sources": [ "alm_serrano_1991", "alm_garcia_sanjuan_2004", "alm_ladjal_2017" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1126, "end": 1126, "yearLabel": "Autumn 1126", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "impact": null }, { "id": "modern-kazakh-famine-sedentarization", "name": "Soviet collectivization, sedentarization, and the Kazakh famine", "dates": "1929–1934", "region": "Central Asia", "periods": [ { "start": 1929, "end": 1934 } ], "story": "In 1929–1930, Soviet authorities planned to settle Kazakh herders in large settlements. The plans aimed to free land for grain and expand collective farms. Much construction failed, and settlement sites stood empty. A further large settlement scheme in 1931 did not move beyond planning.\n\nThe famine was most severe in 1931–1933. Historian Niccolò Pianciola links its start to grain seizures and disruption from collectivization. In his 2018 account, violent forced settlement was not the usual cause. He argues that famine instead left people dependent on the state and led to partial settlement.\n\nPeople fled before 1931, and flight grew during the famine. Some returned; others were forced back. A July 1932 letter described official pressure forcing people back from near Biysk, despite starvation. Receiving areas also saw violence and denied refugees shelter or food.\n\nPeople who returned still faced shortages and violence. In Lapsinsk, Kurdaj and Chilinsk districts, officials ordered former nomads off collective farms. They sent them to uninhabited areas without seed or equipment.\n\nA March 1933 letter reported that state farms received the best land. Commission records also described limits on taking animals to pasture. They recorded abandoned mountain pastures and loss of the former herding economy. These local accounts do not show the fate of every household or plot.\n\nIn March 1933, official policy called large European-style settlements a mistake. Conditions improved after that year's harvest, but recovery was limited. In December 1934, the state raised limits on privately owned livestock. Returns continued after 1934. That year does not mark the end of all famine effects or a completed return.\n\nThese accounts distinguish failed plans, forced returns, local expulsions and loss of pasture. They do not give one total for people forced to move. Deaths, flight, livestock loss and settlement totals measure different things.", "geometryStatus": "unknown", "origins": [], "targets": [], "fit": "contextual", "extent": "regional", "displaced": [ "Kazakh herders and returnees described in this account" ], "settlers": [ "Soviet state and local officials" ], "evidence": "Pianciola’s studies from 2004 and 2018", "sources": [ "v7_kazakh_pianciola2004", "modern_kazakh_famine" ], "geometryExplanation": "The sources do not establish a route, point or boundary for this display.", "impact": null }, { "id": "af-mascarene-seychelles-forced-population-formation", "name": "Slavery, indenture and colonial residence in the Mascarenes and Seychelles", "region": "Africa and the Indian Ocean", "dates": "1638–c. 1920", "extent": "Selected enslaved transfers and residence in Bourbon/Réunion and Seychelles, and Mauritius indenture, estate residence and later worker landholding. The full island-period cohort is not measured.", "fit": "source-supported bounded case", "story": "Colonial settlements in these islands drew on slave transport and contract labour. This case spans 1638 to about 1920. The sources describe selected groups and periods within that frame.\n\nIn 1718, the Courrier de Bourbon brought enslaved Malagasy people to Bourbon for coffee plantations. Bourbon is now Réunion. A ship record for 1807 lists enslaved people brought from Tamatave. Some ships stopped or transferred captives between islands. A landing does not always show where each person later lived.\n\nThe Seychelles museum describes a 1770 voyage from Île de France to Sainte Anne. Île de France is now Mauritius. Its list names seven Africans as enslaved. The account does not state the status of five Indians or a woman named Marie. It describes a move to Mahé in 1771 and another arrival with slaves in 1778. It does not show each person's later fate or task.\n\nIn Mauritius, indentured labour began in 1834 and continued into the 1910s. The article describes medical checks, contracts, quarantine and placement on sugar estates. Contracts differed from slavery, but the authors describe harsh work and colonial control. This does not prove forced recruitment or transport for every worker.\n\nSome former workers finished contracts and bought small plots. From about 1875, large estates were divided and sold. By the late 1870s, some returnees recruited relatives in Bihar. Other workers renewed contracts. The sources do not show these paths for every worker.\n\nSlave voyage totals, arrivals and resident populations measure different things. They cannot give one number for people forced to move across all islands. Disease records also do not give a death toll for this whole case. The share affected, later fates and complete routes remain unknown.", "displaced": [ "Enslaved Malagasy and African groups in specific island arrivals; Indian indentured workers in Mauritius, with differing recruitment, contract and residence histories. Not every traveller is shown to have been forced to depart." ], "settlers": [ "Colonial authorities, traders and plantation owners shaped settlement and labour systems. Enslaved arrivals, contracted workers, former-worker landholders and returnee recruiters are distinct, possibly overlapping roles." ], "evidence": "Reviewed French regional scholarship, an official Seychelles museum account and a full Mauritius historical article support selected transfers and residence outcomes. Allen’s official chapter summary supplies broad context only.", "contested": "The total forced to move, share affected, death share, complete routes, individual capture histories, later fates and exact endpoint remain unknown. No Indigenous replacement or universal forced indenture is inferred.", "note": "The frozen family and eight trait values remain unchanged. Their labels do not mean that every arrival was forced, every worker stayed away for good, or a prior Indigenous population was replaced. Slave transport and indentured recruitment are kept distinct. Disease figures are not a death toll for this case.", "placeGloss": "Bourbon is now Réunion; Île de France is now Mauritius. Source places and port calls remain text. They do not establish one route for all groups. Two selected links are shown: 1770 Île de France to Sainte Anne; 1807 Tamatave to Bourbon. They are place references, not ship tracks. The 1718 departure port remains unmapped.", "geometryStatus": "mapped", "geometryExplanation": "Two selected voyage links are shown: Île de France to Sainte Anne in 1770, and Tamatave to Bourbon in 1807. Island and town points are approximate place references. The arcs do not show ship tracks. The 1718 Bourbon arrival is known; its departure port is not mapped. Other cohorts and complete histories remain unmapped.", "origins": [ { "name": "Île de France/Mauritius — 1770 departure island proxy", "lon": 57.583333, "lat": -20.3 }, { "name": "Tamatave/Toamasina — 1807 departure town proxy", "lon": 49.408139, "lat": -18.151349 } ], "targets": [ { "name": "Sainte Anne — 1770 arrival island proxy", "lon": 55.5, "lat": -4.6 }, { "name": "Bourbon/Réunion — selected arrival island proxy", "lon": 55.6, "lat": -21.1 } ], "sources": [ "mascarene_allen2019_summary", "mascarene_deerpaul2024", "mascarene_thiebaut_bourbon", "mascarene_mathiot_seychelles", "mascarene_nga_place_proxies", "mascarene_toamasina_port_reference" ], "periods": [ { "start": 1638, "end": 1920, "yearLabel": "1638–c. 1920", "consolidatedPlaybackStop": true } ], "impact": null, "routeSegments": [ { "from": { "name": "Île de France/Mauritius — 1770 departure island proxy", "lon": 57.583333, "lat": -20.3 }, "to": { "name": "Sainte Anne — 1770 arrival island proxy", "lon": 55.5, "lat": -4.6 }, "kind": "movement" }, { "from": { "name": "Tamatave/Toamasina — 1807 departure town proxy", "lon": 49.408139, "lat": -18.151349 }, "to": { "name": "Bourbon/Réunion — selected arrival island proxy", "lon": 55.6, "lat": -21.1 }, "kind": "movement" } ] } ]