Known but not yet placeable

Earlier list review: 2026-10-14
Updated: 2026-11-02

Nine new notes and three changes

These entries come from the existing research ledger. Each entry states what a source supports and what needs more evidence.

Some research already passed review. Other entries remain source leads. The next step states the difference.

Unknown harm does not mean no harm. A source lead does not by itself establish forced removal.

Source questions · Map locations

Source questions and research

A Bugesera king flees

Place and era: Bugesera to Rwanda. The source sets this in the late seventeenth century.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says the Baganwa rose against Bugesera. King Nsoro Nyabarega had to flee to Rwanda.
What remains unknown: It names a king, not a whole court or people in flight. The source keeps two ruler names open and says less is known of Burundi.
What is needed next: This is a source lead. Resolve the land or home-loss unit before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A chief and the rule of a district in the Udayendiram charter

Place and era: South Asia. The text names the district as Vishnuraja. The date of the event remains unknown.
What the evidence supports: The charter reports the defeat of a chief and an order to leave. It also reports Pallava rule over the district.
What remains unknown: An order does not show that the chief left. The fate and rights of residents and the duration of rule remain unknown.
What is needed next: Check how the atlas shows this case with an unknown date.

Link to this entry

A claim of captives at site 1Pi61

Place and era: Pickens County, Alabama. Dye places the burials in the Late Woodland period. Exact dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Dye reports that other researchers read the burial treatment as a sign of captives. Their view concerns people buried at this site.
What remains unknown: Burials alone do not show where these people came from or how they reached this site. The report does not establish slave status or forced labor.
What is needed next: Define the captive claim and the control over people that it implies. Keep this view distinct from proof of transport.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A disputed model of moves into New York

Place and era: New York and central Pennsylvania. One model placed the move around 900. A later version put it before the sixth century. Neither is an adopted event date.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports a model by Snow. In it, groups moved north, fought and drove earlier residents away. He also describes a view that the people developed there. He gives evidence that changed the proposed dates.
What remains unknown: The migration and forced moves remain disputed. Pots and village patterns do not settle who moved or why. We have not read the original debate papers.
What is needed next: Check the move and land claims against the cited studies and the view that people developed there.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A grant in Sylhet

Place and era: Sylhet, seventh century CE in this account. The issuer and exact year remain unnamed.
What the evidence supports: The chapter describes a land gift meant to extend cultivation into a forest tract.
What remains unknown: The forest claim does not prove that no one used the land. The exact recipients and actual effects remain unknown.
What is needed next: Find prior use and the effect of this grant. Keep it apart from the later Chandra grant.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A mountain town: defeat and later departure

Place and era: North America, in the source account. The date and exact place are unknown.
What the evidence supports: The 1896 English account by Cushing says warriors defeated a mountain town. They spared some people from cellars and took them into Black Corn kin. Those people later left with the southern group.
What remains unknown: The account does not prove that these acts took place. It gives no firm date or modern site. It does not show if people had to join the later journey or lost their homes for good. Its Black people label does not set a modern racial identity.
What is needed next: Find evidence for the time, place and later journey. Keep the cause of that journey unknown.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A report of brief loss of rule at Pandua

Place and era: Pandua in Bengal. Eaton gives 1353 as context for this invasion. Exact dates for the loss of rule remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Firuz Tughluq drove Shams al-Din Ilyas Shah from Pandua for a time. He failed to annex Bengal.
What remains unknown: The text does not establish removal of civilians or long-term control. The later invasion is a separate question.
What is needed next: Define the brief change in control at Pandua. Keep it distinct from the later invasion and from the coin traces at Chhota Pandua.

Link to this entry

A report of new rule in Kamata and Kamrup

Place and era: Kamata and western Assam (Kamrup). Eaton gives 1494 as campaign context. Exact dates and bounds remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Husain Shah invaded and annexed these tracts. The claim concerns a change of rule.
What remains unknown: The report does not establish civilian removal or resettlement. The length of control remains unclear. It does not define all of modern Assam.
What is needed next: Define the tracts and the change in control in this report. Keep this process distinct from Tai-Ahom settlement.

N. G. Rhodes, “Husain Shah of Bengal and his victory over Kamata,” Oriental Numismatic Society Newsletter 66 (June 1980), PDF page 4; printed page number unverified.

Link to this entry

A report of the removal of Ho-Chunk in Wisconsin

Place and era: The Wisconsin Driftless Area. The authors report removal in the 1840s. The exact dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Theler and Boszhardt report the removal of many Ho-Chunk. This question concerns their loss of residence.
What remains unknown: The text leaves each affected group and its next place unclear. The agents and the separate moves remain unknown. The old records that the authors cite remain unverified here.
What is needed next: Define the affected tracts and the link to the broader Old Northwest case. Keep the reported removal as an open question.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A royal report about the town of Pithumda

Place and era: South Asia. The reported act has no fixed calendar date.
What the evidence supports: A translated royal text says the king ploughed down a named town with asses.
What remains unknown: The act and its effects remain unverified. The fate of residents, land rights and length of control are unknown.
What is needed next: The source assessment is saved and an atlas draft is next, with the reported act and unknown outcomes kept distinct.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Abok loses rule

Place and era: Koc. The source gives no exact date for the overthrow.
What the evidence supports: Jonam traditions in the chapter say Luo under Daca overthrew Abok. Koc split into three states.
What remains unknown: The chapter gives a political outcome. It does not establish eviction or an exact act date. A named tradition adds no second witness here.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Afghan refugees received lands and towns in Bengal

Place and era: Bengal after the defeat by Babur in 1526. That defeat is date context. Exact dates for refuge and grants remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Nasir al-Din Nusrat Shah gave refuge to defeated Afghans. His cited note reports lands and towns endowed to these refugees.
What remains unknown: The report does not name each grant or its bounds. It does not establish harm to prior residents. Modern Afghan or Pashtun labels do not identify this group.
What is needed next: Define the refugee group and the lands and towns in the report. Keep the grants and refuge as one open question.

Link to this entry

Afrin occupation and property loss

Place and era: Afrin, northern Syria; from 2018
What the evidence supports: Located reports concern property abuses and forced changes in the local population.
What remains unknown: The project has not yet reviewed a bounded event in full.
What is needed next: Review the reports and keep other northern Syrian operations separate.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Link to this entry

Ahom loss and return of rule

Place and era: The later Ahom realm. The account reports defeat in 1662 and a return to rule a few years later.
What the evidence supports: Terwiel reports an Ahom defeat in 1662. Muslim invaders defeated them. Ahom rule resumed a few years later.
What remains unknown: The exact tract, resident groups and interval remain unknown. The account does not establish a forced move. Later recovery does not erase the earlier loss of control.
What is needed next: Trace effects on residents and the extent of the changed rule. Keep this later sequence distinct from early conquests.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Akjoujt copper-centre decline

Place and era: Akjoujt; early historic context, decline date unknown
What the evidence supports: A regional history describes the decline of this copper centre.
What remains unknown: The end of copper work does not show that people were forced out.
What is needed next: Review the site layers for a cause of departure and a land outcome.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Alaungpaya-era captive removal

Place and era: Manipur to Burma; ruler-period context before 1819, exact dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The source reports captive removal and forced resettlement under the named ruler.
What remains unknown: The short account does not settle if one program or several caused the moves.
What is needed next: Define the process and complete its event and overlap review.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Ali Burghul’s control of Tripoli

Place and era: Tripoli; source reports 1793
What the evidence supports: A regional history reports entry into the city and rulers driven from power.
What remains unknown: The text does not show that the whole family left or who supported the action.
What is needed next: Distinguish loss of power from removal of people.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Alwa and Soba pasture control

Place and era: Alwa and Soba areas, Sudan; fifteenth-century context
What the evidence supports: The source describes pasture control, new settlers and marriages between groups.
What remains unknown: This does not yet prove a specific forced loss of land or homes.
What is needed next: Find a forced land process distinct from pasture use and settlement.

Link to this entry

Amda Seyon’s Hadiya captives

Place and era: Hadiya; medieval chronicle context, event date unknown
What the evidence supports: A royal chronicle describes deaths and captives taken from Hadiya to the royal city.
What remains unknown: The account does not show the exact destination, full affected group, or later return.
What is needed next: Review the links to other attacks before this becomes a separate case.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

An order to move people to Lakhnauti

Place and era: Near Lakhnauti in Bengal. The order dates to the reign of Jalal al-Din Khalaji. Its exact date remains unknown.
What the evidence supports: Jalal al-Din Khalaji ordered boats to take people to this area, Eaton reports. He ordered them to live there, away from Delhi.
What remains unknown: The text calls them thugs or criminals. These are its labels. Arrival and compliance with the order remain unclear.
What is needed next: Resolve the group and tract. Examine what the order changed in residence there. Keep the order distinct from proof of its execution.

Link to this entry

Andalusi Christian deportation

Place and era: Andalusia to Morocco; autumn 1126
What the evidence supports: The sources report forced removal of Christian families and church leaders.
What remains unknown: The sources do not prove that all Christians lost their homes or land.
What is needed next: This case is in the atlas; its open source questions still need review.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Link to this entry

Angolan forced exile to Congo

Place and era: Northwestern Angola to Congo; 1961
What the evidence supports: The chapter says state repression forced people from northwest Angola to Congo.
What remains unknown: Each home tract, later fate and return remain unclear.
What is needed next: Resolve links to other Angola cases before atlas use.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Attack on Awatovi and the loss of residents' homes

Place and era: Awatovi, in present-day Arizona; Fewkes places the attack around 1700. The exact date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Fewkes records a later Hopi account of an attack on Awatovi. It reports deaths, forced travel and the division of some survivors among other villages. He also describes burned rooms that he examined.
What remains unknown: Fewkes does not establish a death toll or the fate of each resident. Fire damage alone does not identify the attackers or date the attack. Later control of the site remains unknown.
What is needed next: Compare the recorded account with excavation evidence from Awatovi. Keep the reported attack separate from the date and causes that Fewkes proposed.

James M. Potter and Jason P. Chuipka, Perimortem mutilation of human remains in an early village in the American Southwest: A case for ethnic violence (2010), consulted in-press copy, Awatovi comparison. Turner and Turner (1999), pp. 72–77, cited there but not directly read.
Jesse Walter Fewkes, Archeological Expedition to Arizona in 1895 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1899 offprint), printed pp. 600–606. Later transmitted accounts and separate excavation observations; original-language accounts and cited manuscripts not consulted.

Link to this entry

Awdighust conquest and local Zanata killing

Place and era: Awdighust; within a 1054–1059 campaign account, exact attack date unknown
What the evidence supports: The source says conquerors killed local Zanata residents.
What remains unknown: The source retains later market life and does not prove death of all residents.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Balbus and Garamantian towns

Place and era: Garamantian oasis towns; ancient Roman context
What the evidence supports: Pliny reports that Roman forces captured named oasis towns.
What remains unknown: His report does not show resident removal or later land ownership.
What is needed next: Review links with the broader campaign before a separate atlas case.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Bamiléké-associated village expulsion

Place and era: Bamum-country tract, Cameroon; tentative seventeenth-century context
What the evidence supports: The sources describe village expulsion while some residents stayed and joined Bamum society.
What remains unknown: The exact phase and its link to the kingdom conquest remain unclear.
What is needed next: Resolve the related events before the case assessment.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Batwa evictions from Kahuzi-Biega

Place and era: Kahuzi-Biega, DRC; park changes in 1970 and 1975
What the evidence supports: A rights decision records eviction complaints and finds exclusion from the park contrary to state duties.
What remains unknown: The decision does not show that its remedies brought return or restored land rights.
What is needed next: Review the affected groups and links with broader park evictions before atlas review.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Bedde residence retreat

Place and era: Komadugu Yobe area; gradual process, chronology unknown
What the evidence supports: The author links gradual retreat from prior homes to Kanuri advance.
What remains unknown: The dates and identity of the affected group in each source remain unclear.
What is needed next: Review each source and define a bounded loss of homes.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Bornu royal complaint of slave raids

Place and era: Bornu; letter dated 1391, attack dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The chapter reports a royal complaint of attacks and captive sales.
What remains unknown: The attack dates, origin tracts and affected subgroups remain unclear.
What is needed next: Define separate attacks and their links to loss of homes.

Link to this entry

Brahmans settle in Bengal

Place and era: Bengal, from at least the fifth century CE in this account.
What the evidence supports: The chapter describes Brahman migrants and changes in farms and social life.
What remains unknown: Prior land rights and the effects on village residents remain unknown. The Assam comparison does not establish a Bengal land loss.
What is needed next: Find the tract, prior rights and the effect of a bounded act.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Brooke acquisition of occupied Iban districts

Place and era: Sarawak river districts; 1850s–1860s context, exact cession dates unresolved
What the evidence supports: The source describes acquisition of occupied Iban river districts.
What remains unknown: Formal state consent does not prove resident consent or complete village clearance.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Link to this entry

Brooke-era settlement in Baram and Limbang

Place and era: Baram and Limbang, Sarawak; late nineteenth-century policy context
What the evidence supports: The article says the state approved Sea Dayak and Chinese settlement in acquired districts.
What remains unknown: The loss of land for prior residents remains unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the policy in practice and the prior land rights.

Link to this entry

Brunei worker deportation

Place and era: Brunei to Sarawak; postwar employment context, deportation date unknown
What the evidence supports: The article reports government deportation of a roads worker to Sarawak.
What remains unknown: The reason, precise home tract and later fate remain unknown.
What is needed next: Assess the bounded removal and its links to prior cases.

Link to this entry

Buryat flight from Baikal

Place and era: The author places this flight near Baikal in the 1650s to 1670s.
What the evidence supports: Rubtsova reports flight from troops, loss of goods and homes, and later refuge.
What remains unknown: The student essay retells stories with few source details. A separate event from the broad case remains unproved.
What is needed next: Define the flight account and its link to the current Baikal case.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Camp moves in response to raids

Place and era: Northeast North America. Dye sets the camp moves in the late 1500s and early 1600s. The local bounds remain open.
What the evidence supports: Dye links moves of summer camps from major rivers to small tributaries with raids. These are changes in where people stayed.
What remains unknown: The source does not bound each group or river reach. It does not prove that each move was forced or final. Algonquian is a broad language label here. It does not name one Algonquin people. Dye cites work that we did not read.
What is needed next: Trace the groups or river reaches and the raids tied to these moves. Keep seasonal use and forced loss distinct.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Captive clans from Niani

Place and era: Niani to Songhay; Sonni dynasty context, event date unknown
What the evidence supports: The reference work reports an account of captive clans brought from Niani.
What remains unknown: Their prior homes and forced-transfer process remain unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the account and define the groups and removal process.

Link to this entry

Captives from Sabr al-Din’s city

Place and era: Ifat; medieval chronicle context, event date unknown
What the evidence supports: A royal chronicle reports a ruined city and survivors led away as captives.
What remains unknown: The text does not show where they went or how long they were held.
What is needed next: Review shared people and actions with the other campaign episodes before atlas review.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Castle Rock Pueblo attack and lost homes

Place and era: Castle Rock Pueblo in southwestern Colorado. The report places the attack after 1274, probably in the early or mid 1280s. This is an estimate, not an exact year.
What the evidence supports: Kuckelman reports violent deaths of people in their village homes. She links the attack to the end of village life. The deaths show loss of home for the residents killed there.
What remains unknown: The attacker and the fate of survivors remain unknown. The report leaves open who set the fires. It does not show where survivors went, later land rights or permanent exclusion. Detailed bone analysis is outside this chapter.
What is needed next: Trace any survivors and later use of the village. Keep the local attack separate from wider moves across the region.

James M. Potter and Jason P. Chuipka, Perimortem mutilation of human remains in an early village in the American Southwest: A case for ethnic violence (2010). Accepted Castle Rock comparative window, parsed L559–602; cited Kuckelman2000/2002 underlying items were not directly consulted in that earlier reading.
Kristin A. Kuckelman, The Final Days of Castle Rock Pueblo, paragraphs 1–10 and terminal analysis footnote. Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

Link to this entry

Cave 7 burial and violence question

Place and era: Cave 7; Basketmaker II context, event date unknown
What the evidence supports: A later study rejects a single-event massacre and discusses violence and selective burial.
What remains unknown: The conclusion does not show a defined land or home loss, or prove that nothing happened.
What is needed next: Keep the lead open and seek a new residence question beyond this closed source review.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Central Plains and Middle Missouri movement

Place and era: Central Plains and Middle Missouri; occupation-phase context, event date unknown
What the evidence supports: A state site guide describes moves into the valley that displaced earlier groups.
What remains unknown: The text does not show one defined removal or the fate of a specific occupied tract.
What is needed next: Identify a specific process and group without one event guessed from the regional pattern.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Chandra grants in Sylhet

Place and era: Sylhet, tenth century CE. Sircar places Sricandra's charter at about 930 CE. This date is an estimate.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports land grants and settlement. Sircar describes land and revenue rights granted to religious bodies and Brahmans. The charter directs cultivators to pay the recipients. It excludes Buddhist holdings and land attached to a boat station.
What remains unknown: The charter does not show who enforced the change or whether cultivators lost earlier rights. The stated number of beneficiaries is not a count of arrivals or displaced people.
What is needed next: Trace the earlier rights and the effects of the transfer. Keep the stated settlement and the excluded holdings in view.

Richard M. Eaton, The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760, chapter 1, “Before the Turkish Conquest,” archive section s1.1.3 and note 54; printed pagination unverified.
D. C. Sircar, Epigraphic Discoveries in East Pakistan (1973), Lecture II, “Paschimbhag Plate of Sricandra, Regnal Year 5,” printed pages 19–40 (PDF pages 36–57); consulted edition discussion, not independently verified inscription transcription.

Link to this entry

Chilula and Wiyot land question

Place and era: Lower Mad River near Blue Lake, California; local date unknown
What the evidence supports: Golla reports encroachment on Wiyot land by Chilula groups. He says the language boundary moved west.
What remains unknown: The local effect on homes or land control is unknown. How the wider account of land loss fits this place is unknown.
What is needed next: Find what the local encroachment changed in land use or control.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Clans and shrines in Busoga

Place and era: Busoga. The source gives several paths to rule, not one act date.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Owiny and Wakoli became clans in power. Some migrants took over shrines and founded states. Marriage and old rites also shaped this process.
What remains unknown: The units and land effects remain unclear. A new clan in power does not itself prove that residents lost homes or all left.
What is needed next: This is a source lead. Resolve the land or home-loss unit before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Coins and a question of Deva rule in Bengal

Place and era: The south and east Bengal delta. The text and note give different date contexts. Exact dates for a change of rule remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Eaton uses coins to trace brief Deva rule and a return of sultanate rule. Mint names and place names remain disputed.
What remains unknown: These traces leave the process and tract unclear. Chhota Pandua and Hazrat Pandua are distinct places. The report does not establish moves by residents.
What is needed next: Resolve which tract and change in rule these traces support. Coin evidence can support a case when it bounds the process.

Link to this entry

Contested use at Mulberry Creek

Place and era: Mulberry Creek in northwest Alabama. Dye places the site in the late Middle Archaic. Exact dates for the dispute remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Dye reports a dispute over shellfish, tool manufacture, and burial use at this site. He links the burial evidence to raids and feuds.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish who lost access to the site or homes there. A dispute alone does not show a change in control.
What is needed next: Define the disputed uses and any change in access or control at this site.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Cottonwood Wash archaeological comparison

Place and era: Cottonwood Wash; early Pueblo I context, event date unknown
What the evidence supports: An article cites this site among examples discussed in relation to violence.
What remains unknown: The reviewed text does not show forced departure or a land outcome here.
What is needed next: Review the cited site evidence for a specific process that affected homes.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Court grants of farmland

Place and era: Northern and western Bengal, tenth to twelfth centuries in this account.
What the evidence supports: The chapter describes royal grants of fields to Brahmans with court ties. It notes a different pattern in Samatata.
What remains unknown: Prior rights and effects on residents remain unknown. This group of grants can overlap with the named gift and western tax grants.
What is needed next: Find which rights changed and how. Link the related grants to avoid a double count.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Crow Creek attack and residence loss

Place and era: Crow Creek. The source places village life in the 1300s. The date of the attack remains unknown.
What the evidence supports: Willey describes an attack at Crow Creek. He links burned lodges to the loss of village life, homes and defense. He considers that some people escaped. He proposes that escaped villagers returned, or people with ties to them came, to bury the dead. He also reports later ceremonies at the site.
What remains unknown: The attackers and the fates of all survivors remain unknown. Willey does not fix the dates of each fire or prove later village residence. He gives two possible causes for the upper bone layer. The detailed methods behind his summaries remain unread.
What is needed next: Keep this source account with the same Crow Creek record. Retain the unknown fire dates, later village use and survivor destinations.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Link to this entry

Daur removal from the Amur

Place and era: Amur region and Nonni valley; source reports 1653–1654
What the evidence supports: A book reports a state order to destroy homes and crops, then Daur flight to the Nonni valley.
What remains unknown: The text does not show if all ordered fires occurred or which homes they affected.
What is needed next: Review how this removal relates to other Amur histories before a separate atlas case.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Denbigh change: did people have to leave?

Place and era: Alaska, near the Bering Sea and Arctic coasts. The source gives broad age ranges, not a firm event date.
What the evidence supports: A 2018 state report says a migration with Denbigh culture displaced or replaced earlier people. It leaves that choice open. The 1986 field report describes hearths and stone tools. Its authors interpret coastal sites as seasonal hunting camps, infer some tents, and trace some tool traits toward Choris culture. These are their interpretations of use and cultural descent. The later Cape and Canada/Greenland findings do not settle the Denbigh claim.
What remains unknown: The complete Denbigh chapter does not establish that human action caused people to lose homes, land use, access or control. Erosion, lost collections, weak dates and uncertain tool uses limit the evidence. Two plate or beach references conflict. This source limit does not show that displacement never occurred.
What is needed next: The Denbigh chapter, figures and plates are now read and checked. Keep the question open. Seek evidence that links a human act to loss of homes, land use, access or control. The separate Oxford chapter remains unread because access is blocked.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Link to this entry

Did these groups merge or leave?

Place and era: Okii and Iteso-Iworopom homelands south of Apule. The source sets this near the 1820s and 1830s.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says proto-Karimojong entered these homelands. They either absorbed the groups or forced them to leave.
What remains unknown: The account leaves both outcomes open. It does not show that all people left. Drought and mixed group ties remain part of the account.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Djerba taken in the source account

Place and era: Djerba; source reports 1558, date not independently verified
What the evidence supports: A regional history reports the capture of the island and states a year.
What remains unknown: The text does not show forced departures or a verified event date.
What is needed next: Keep the date attributed and prepare the capture account with its limits.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Djiganyai and Bou Khzama settlement changes

Place and era: Dhar Néma; ancient and later occupation phases
What the evidence supports: A site study describes renewed and repeated use of these settlements.
What remains unknown: Repeated use does not show that new groups forced earlier residents off the land.
What is needed next: Compare the dated layers to distinguish site reuse from a specific takeover.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Dogon expulsion from Yatenga

Place and era: Yatenga toward Bandiagara; medieval context, campaign dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The reference work reports expulsion toward the cliffs.
What remains unknown: The exact campaign, affected groups and later land outcome remain unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the account and define the affected tract and process.

Link to this entry

Driftless villages and moves to new settlements

Place and era: The Driftless Area, with Fred Edwards and Hartley Fort, and later sites at Apple River and Red Wing. Around 950 to 1200 CE is source context. The time of a specific human process remains unknown.
What the evidence supports: The authors propose that scarce deer and wood led people to leave. They describe walled villages and suggest that groups later joined at new sites. They favor war as part of this change.
What remains unknown: The text leaves open how people moved and how land use or control changed. The figures and table layouts remain unread. The links between named cultures are the authors' views.
What is needed next: Keep this as a research lead. Define a human process and its effect on residence or land control. A tract can bound the inquiry.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Duckfoot: burned homes and departure

Place and era: Southwest North America. The reports suggest departure by about 880 CE. They do not date a forced move.
What the evidence supports: The reports link burned roofs to the end of use of the site. The author argues that someone burned the homes on purpose. He proposes that residents did this, then left with no plan to return.
What remains unknown: The cause remains unresolved. The report considers disease, famine and violence. It does not establish forced departure or new control of land.
What is needed next: Find evidence that links the end of residence to a forced move or loss of land.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Dunkula seizure and royal flight

Place and era: Dunkula to al-Daw, Sudan; 1365–1366
What the evidence supports: The chapter reports new control of the city and flight of the king.
What remains unknown: Other resident fates and the extent of destruction remain unclear.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Link to this entry

Dâô and Nindien land seizure

Place and era: Dâô and Nindien, New Caledonia; decree dated 1899
What the evidence supports: A study reports seizure of land and part of a reservation.
What remains unknown: The account does not show that residents left or identify the full affected group.
What is needed next: Define the seized tract and its links with other cases before atlas review.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Earlier retaliation in Ifat

Place and era: Ifat; medieval chronicle context, event date unknown
What the evidence supports: A royal speech recounts an earlier raid, burned towns, and captives.
What remains unknown: The text does not show that these captives left the area or where they went.
What is needed next: Keep this raid distinct and check its links with the later campaign.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Earlier Taranaki pressure and southward residence

Place and era: Taranaki and southern North Island; 1820s
What the evidence supports: The sources describe war pressure and southward moves before the later atlas case.
What remains unknown: The force behind each early move and the links to later migrants remain unclear.
What is needed next: Review each early move and link it to the narrower departure case.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Early Ahom conquest in the valley

Place and era: A small part of the Brahmaputra Valley. The account places this act at the start of the thirteenth century.
What the evidence supports: Terwiel reports an early Ahom conquest. Newcomers who spoke Tai took control of a small part of the valley.
What remains unknown: The earlier residents and exact bounds remain unknown. The account does not establish a forced move. A separate event from the broad Ahom account is not established.
What is needed next: Add the early control report to the current Ahom case. Define how this conquest relates to the longer account. Keep later conquests separate.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Early settlement in the Hadley and McCraney valleys

Place and era: Western Illinois; occupation context about 600 to 1000 CE, event dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The report locates occupied sites and describes possible repeated use.
What remains unknown: The report does not show forced departure, land loss or who lived at each site.
What is needed next: Find evidence of a forced departure from a defined place or the loss of land rights.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Elara takes the realm

Place and era: Sri Lanka. The account gives no firm calendar date.
What the evidence supports: The chronicle says Elara came from the Cola country and took the realm from Asela. It calls his rule just.
What remains unknown: The account does not show who left their homes or lost rights to land. The wider effects on residents are unknown.
What is needed next: Assess this reported takeover as a distinct case. Keep its just rule and unknown resident outcomes in view.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Enslaved people recruited to serve in Bengal

Place and era: Bengal. Eaton places recruitment in the 1460s and 1470s. Exact arrival dates and sites remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Bengal rulers recruited or imported enslaved people from East Africa. They were to serve in army and state posts. His source uses the label habashi.
What remains unknown: Their exact origins and routes remain unclear. The report does not establish land grants or long-term homes. Modern ethnic labels do not resolve their identity.
What is needed next: Define this group and its link to the wider Indian Ocean slave routes. Keep any shared people or journeys unresolved.

Link to this entry

Epi land acquisition and exclusion

Place and era: Epi, Vanuatu; from 1882, event bounds unresolved
What the evidence supports: The source describes land claims, disputed vendors and exclusion.
What remains unknown: The link to the prior Vanuatu case remains unclear.
What is needed next: Compare the affected plots and processes before a separate event.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Erie village and fort losses

Place and era: The source reports an Erie village lost in 1654. It reports a fort lost in 1655 in a separate entry. The body gives a wider context from 1654 to 1656.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports a village and a fort destroyed in separate entries. The figure is a dramatization of the fort assault.
What remains unknown: The village and fort are not proved to be one event. Later use and the fate of all Erie people remain open.
What is needed next: Keep the village and fort legs separate in later work.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Ezana’s reported Noba campaign

Place and era: Source-named Takkaze, Seda and Kasu corridor; fourth-century context, campaign date unknown
What the evidence supports: The royal text reports battle, flight, capture and destruction of towns and stores.
What remains unknown: The modern town sites and all resident fates remain unclear.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Link to this entry

Failed escape near Kyakhta

Place and era: The story concerns flight from Mongolia and pursuit near Kyakhta, with no clear date.
What the evidence supports: Rubtsova reports that a force defeated the group led by Khachinov and sent it back.
What remains unknown: The student essay gives no clear source for this story. Its link to other flight stories remains unknown.
What is needed next: Define the forced return and its relation to the other accounts.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Fields and states in the middle Ganges

Place and era: Middle Ganges, mainly in the first millennium BCE in this account.
What the evidence supports: The chapter describes migrants, local farmers and new fields. It links these changes to new states and warfare.
What remains unknown: The chapter gives no bounded loss of land or forced move here. Migration and local change alone do not prove such a loss.
What is needed next: Find a bounded act and its effect on land rights or homes.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Fiji farm and home losses

Place and era: Fiji; losses reported in 2000, complete event dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The source reports some farm tenants lost homes and crops.
What remains unknown: Lease expiry does not prove that all departures were forced.
What is needed next: Resolve the links to other Fiji cases before atlas use.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Link to this entry

Flight from Tekidi

Place and era: Tekidi to Pakwac-Pawir. The source says this was around 1560, with no firm act date.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Lotuho overran Tekidi. Most residents and King Owiny Rac Koma fled. It names an oral Luo tradition.
What remains unknown: The two accounts overlap. They do not prove that all residents left. The exact date and later group ties remain unknown.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Florida mission destruction and dispersal

Place and era: Florida mission communities; 1702–1706
What the evidence supports: The sources describe attacks, slavery and flight from named mission communities.
What remains unknown: This does not prove an empty peninsula or the loss of every earlier community.
What is needed next: The case is prepared; it still needs checks before it goes live.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5

Link to this entry

French wartime land confiscation in Tahiti

Place and era: Tahiti; 1844–1847
What the evidence supports: The sources describe land seizures without pay and wartime land confiscation.
What remains unknown: The affected plots, owners and later restitution remain unclear.
What is needed next: Trace named plots and distinguish each seizure phase from later land rules.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Gao Liangcheng’s estate and local displacement

Place and era: Shisangnong, Mouzhou and western Weichu; medieval context, displacement dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The scholarship links refugee land grants and estate growth with flight of local opponents.
What remains unknown: This does not prove removal of all uplanders or a modern identity for those opponents.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Gisaka takes land

Place and era: Buganza and Bwanacyambwe. The source places this loss of rule in the mid-sixteenth century. The act date is not firm.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Gisaka took this land from Rwanda. Rwanda took it back about a century later. This is one chain of loss and return.
What remains unknown: The exact bounds and residents remain unclear. Royal flight does not prove that all subjects left. Later recapture belongs to this same chain.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Gradual return in 1917

Place and era: Central Asia; first half of 1917
What the evidence supports: A study describes gradual return in the first half of the stated year.
What remains unknown: Return does not show restored property, safe settlement, or return of the whole displaced group.
What is needed next: Trace who returned and what happened to their earlier homes and land.

Link to this entry

Hausa and Gobirawa displacement from Aïr

Place and era: Aïr toward Adar and Gobir; fourteenth–fifteenth-century context
What the evidence supports: The reference work describes conquest that pushed residents southward.
What remains unknown: The separate campaigns and affected groups remain unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the sources and bound the removal and destination processes.

Link to this entry

Hoamoal forced residential relocation

Place and era: West Seram and unnamed nearby islands; war-end context, exact move dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The source describes forced moves to places of closer VOC control.
What remains unknown: The exact islands, destinations and later resident fates remain unclear.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Link to this entry

Homes in larger groups in the Middle Woodland period

Place and era: Parts of eastern North America. Dye gives the fifth and sixth centuries AD as context. Exact dates for local moves remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Dye describes a rise in larger groups of homes. He offers access to resources and defense as possible causes.
What remains unknown: The account does not define a local forced move or loss of land. The Peter enclosure is a separate question.
What is needed next: Define the local tracts and the change in homes or land use. Keep the possible causes distinct.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Houaïlou captive women

Place and era: New Caledonia; 1878 reports
What the evidence supports: A study reports captive women removed from their homes and assigned to east-coast auxiliaries.
What remains unknown: The sources do not show all destinations, conditions, or the fate of captured children.
What is needed next: Define the separate groups and transfers without guessed routes.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Houaïlou flight and Bourail refuge

Place and era: Houaïlou and Bourail, New Caledonia; 1867–1868 context
What the evidence supports: A study describes destroyed homes, forced flight from the valley, and refuge near Bourail.
What remains unknown: The account does not show where each refugee went or if they returned.
What is needed next: Review shared people and phases with earlier campaign cases before a separate case.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

How did Bunyoro lose pasture?

Place and era: Bunyoro and Buganda. The source gives a span from 1760 to 1783.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Bunyoro lost good land for herds to Buganda. It does not say all herders left.
What remains unknown: It does not name the tract or say all herders left. This loss can overlap the named Buganda seizures.
What is needed next: This is a source lead. Resolve the land or home-loss unit before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

How did Paluoland lose its rule?

Place and era: Paluoland and Pawir. The source links incorporation to Isana and gives a broad reign range.
What the evidence supports: Bunyoro placed the Pawir chieflets under a chief. Paluoland lost its limited self-rule. Some Paluo left after lost status or persecution.
What remains unknown: Some is not all. The time and cause of each move remain unclear. Later Paluo states also kept some local hereditary leaders.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Huron and Petun losses at separate towns

Place and era: The source reports Huron town losses in 1648 and 1649. It reports a separate Tobacco village loss. That entry dates the loss to 1651.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports that Huron towns were taken or destroyed. A separate entry reports a Tobacco village destroyed and people captured.
What remains unknown: These acts do not fix the fate of all Huron and Petun people. The town losses and later captive roles remain distinct.
What is needed next: Keep each Huron and Petun leg separate. Trace later homes and land use for each leg.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Imatkha herd loss and settlement

Place and era: Imatkha, North Asia; date unknown
What the evidence supports: Jochelson reports herd loss to unnamed enemies followed by settlement at this place.
What remains unknown: The account does not show a defined land seizure or forced removal.
What is needed next: Identify the earlier home and cause of the move before a case is admitted.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Injuries and raids at Windover

Place and era: Windover in east-central Florida. Dye gives about 6000 to 5000 BC as site context. Exact dates for raids remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Dye reports injuries at this site. He reads their pattern as signs of repeated raids or early feuds.
What remains unknown: The account does not identify a loss of land use or homes. The injuries do not establish such a loss.
What is needed next: Examine any link between the raids and changes in use of the site or homes.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Ivolga destruction and residence loss

Place and era: Ivolga, Transbaikalia; Xiongnu-period context, destruction date unknown
What the evidence supports: The author says a military attack destroyed the site and life there did not resume.
What remains unknown: The attackers and later resident fates remain unknown.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Link to this entry

Jebel Sahaba: traces of violence and an open land question

Place and era: East Africa, in the Nile valley at Jebel Sahaba. The site belongs to the late ice age. No event date is known.
What the evidence supports: The study reports wounds from weapons and evidence of repeated violence.
What remains unknown: This evidence does not establish lost homes, forced flight or a change in control of land.
What is needed next: Find evidence that links the violence to lost homes or land control.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Jinshan residents moved to Shandong

Place and era: Jinshan and Shandong; source reports a 1295 regnal year
What the evidence supports: A state annal reports residents moved to Shandong with land, cattle, and seed.
What remains unknown: The text does not record consent, means of force, or a verified Altai origin.
What is needed next: Review the place and population links before a separate atlas case.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Junju takes Buddu

Place and era: Buddu. The source places Junju and Kamanya within one broad span.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Junju annexed Buddu. This reports a change in control of a named tract.
What remains unknown: The act date and local land rights remain unknown. The source does not say that households left. Kooki tribute is a separate claim.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Kalaka tale of capture and rule

Place and era: Ujjain and Malwa. The tale has no known date.
What the evidence supports: Puri relates a Jaina tale. A king abducts the sister of Kalaka. Saka forces then attack and capture the king. The tale also describes later changes in rule.
What remains unknown: This is a tale with several acts. The chapter does not establish that each act took place. It does not trace one group through all the acts.
What is needed next: Assess the distinct acts in the tale and their land or residence effects. Keep its genre and unknown date clear.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Kasakudi village grant

Place and era: Kodukolli, southern India; regnal year stated, calendar date unknown
What the evidence supports: The translated charter says former owners lost land rights under a royal grant that excluded farmers' homes and earlier religious grants.
What remains unknown: The source does not establish eviction, all rights lost or who held the land later.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before this account can enter the atlas.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Kayrawan taken in 1557

Place and era: Kayrawan; source reports 1557
What the evidence supports: A regional history reports the capture of the city in the stated year.
What remains unknown: The text does not show forced departures, deaths, or long-term property loss.
What is needed next: Prepare the accepted control transfer without added population effects.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Khongodor flight and new homes

Place and era: The accounts name Mongolia. They also name the Irkut, Kitoy and Alar valleys.
What the evidence supports: Rubtsova reports flight, pursuit, loss of herds and later homes in these valleys.
What remains unknown: The student essay gives varied stories, with no clear date, single route or separate event.
What is needed next: Define each account and its links to the broad Baikal case.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Khori moves and land release

Place and era: The account places moves to the Agin steppes in the eighteenth century.
What the evidence supports: Rubtsova reports state orders for guard duty and land release, with moves by some Khori.
What remains unknown: The student essay does not match each move to its stated purpose. Exact dates remain unknown.
What is needed next: Define the ordered moves and their link to land release in the broad Baikal case.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Kibse smith settlement by command

Place and era: Yatenga; date unknown
What the evidence supports: The local account says authority placed smiths from nearby villages in other villages.
What remains unknown: The words do not prove forced moves or loss of prior homes.
What is needed next: Resolve the origin groups, order, consent and land outcome.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Kluiyu residents dispersed

Place and era: Kluiyu, Kitsumkalum Lake, and Nass River; date unknown
What the evidence supports: A recorded story reports revenge that drove residents from their settlement.
What remains unknown: The text does not show modern descent, all resident fates, permanent land loss, or later return.
What is needed next: Prepare the departure account apart from the arrival and refuge stories.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Kongo expansion into Mpemba

Place and era: West Central Africa; late medieval formation context, event bounds unresolved
What the evidence supports: The sources describe conquest of an earlier polity and new local rule.
What remains unknown: This does not prove a single invasion or identify each affected group.
What is needed next: Define a bounded process and assess the traditions and affected tracts.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5

Link to this entry

Kooki pays tribute

Place and era: Kooki. The source places Junju and Kamanya within one broad span.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Junju forced Kooki to pay tribute.
What remains unknown: Tribute does not itself prove annexation, direct rule or loss of homes. The exact date and scope of land control remain unclear.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Kulughli formation and exclusion

Place and era: Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli; early modern context
What the evidence supports: A regional history describes group formation and different rights across the cities.
What remains unknown: Loss of political rights does not show forced departure or land seizure.
What is needed next: Trace each group and test whether a specific exclusion affected homes or land.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Kushana destruction of Sirkap

Place and era: Sirkap, Taxila; first-century CE source context, event date unknown
What the evidence supports: An ICOMOS text says the Kushanas destroyed this city. Marshall assigns quake damage to an earlier layer. He places a separate layer after conquest. He also describes house plans and floors.
What remains unknown: Marshall infers some use of Sirkap after the city shifted. The cause of later damage and the fate of each resident stay open. Captive destinations and an exact loss date remain unknown.
What is needed next: Review the new source notes with the earlier city loss claim before release.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Kwajalein residential clearance

Place and era: Kwajalein Island to Ebeye; January 1951
What the evidence supports: The source reports removal from the labor camp to Ebeye.
What remains unknown: The move does not prove loss of base jobs.
What is needed next: The case is prepared; it still needs checks before it goes live.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Link to this entry

Kyrgyz and Kazakh flight to China

Place and era: Central Asia and China; 1916 context
What the evidence supports: A study describes flight to China and land left behind.
What remains unknown: The passage does not show exact groups, the cause of every departure, or later land use.
What is needed next: Define the departure groups and their links with other flight histories.

Link to this entry

Lakshmana Sena gives land

Place and era: Cultivated land under Lakshmana Sena. The chapter gives no exact grant date or tract.
What the evidence supports: The chapter reports a tax-free land gift to the priest Isvaradevasarmman. The gift was part of a royal rite.
What remains unknown: Prior users, their rights and the actual effects remain unknown. A grant for all time does not prove a later outcome.
What is needed next: Find which rights the gift changed in practice. A rights loss does not require eviction.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Land disputes near Baikal

Place and era: The account concerns Kudara and the Barguzin valley, but its dates remain broad.
What the evidence supports: Rubtsova reports land disputes, official help and new homes for some arrivals.
What remains unknown: The student essay gives few source details. It does not establish the expulsion of prior residents.
What is needed next: Define the dispute, access to land and the link to the earlier flight.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Land grant at Mathura

Place and era: Mathura. Konow places the record around 5 to 10 CE. This estimate is not a fixed event date.
What the evidence supports: Konow reads Sudasa as the land donor. He says the monk Budhila received it in trust for a Buddhist order. He credits Ayasia Kamuia with the relic deposit.
What remains unknown: Prior rights and any loss of them remain unknown. Force and actual residence also remain unknown. A place of origin for Budhila does not prove travel. The grant does not prove vacant land or consent by all prior rights holders.
What is needed next: Assess what the land gift changed in use or control. Keep prior rights, force and actual residence open.

B. N. Puri, The Sakas and Indo-Parthians, chapter 8, printed page 200
Sten Konow, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum II.1, No. XV, Mathura Lion Capital, printed pages 30–49

Link to this entry

Land pressure and departure from Tunka

Place and era: The account concerns the Tunka valley and later moves toward Predbaikal, with no clear date.
What the evidence supports: Rubtsova links new arrivals to land pressure. Prior residents and some arrivals then left.
What remains unknown: The student essay gives few source details and does not prove a total expulsion or attack.
What is needed next: Define the land pressure and keep it distinct from the flight into Tunka.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Lao captive removal after the war

Place and era: Lao homeland to Thai provinces; after the 1827–1828 war, exact removal dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The source reports forced removal of peasants and their settlement as war slaves.
What remains unknown: Their home villages, destinations and later fates remain unclear.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Late Tichitt decline

Place and era: Dhar Tichitt-Walata; first millennium BCE context
What the evidence supports: Site studies describe late settlement changes and raise a question about new groups and force.
What remains unknown: The reviewed sources do not show a forced departure or seizure of a defined tract.
What is needed next: Review the cited site layers for a specific group, action, and land outcome.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Later Ahom conquests in the east

Place and era: The eastern Brahmaputra Valley. Terwiel places these conquests at the start of the sixteenth century.
What the evidence supports: Terwiel reports Ahom conquests of the Kachari and Chutiya. They extended Ahom control in the eastern valley.
What remains unknown: The account does not map each tract or name all resident groups. It does not establish one separate event for each name. A forced move is not established.
What is needed next: Define the later control sequence and its tracts. Keep it separate from the first conquest and the 1662 loss of rule.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Lib removal and return

Place and era: Lib and Ebeye, Marshall Islands; 1961–1966
What the evidence supports: The source reports a move to Ebeye and later return to a rebuilt village.
What remains unknown: The source does not prove that each person returned.
What is needed next: The case is prepared; it still needs checks before it goes live.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Link to this entry

Linyi capital attack

Place and era: Linyi; 446
What the evidence supports: The scholarly table reports an attack that burned and plundered the capital.
What remains unknown: The link to a burnt layer from excavation remains uncertain.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Little Muck Shelter site users

Place and era: Little Muck Shelter; medieval contact-period context
What the evidence supports: Site authors discuss changed use and possible departure or absorption of the users.
What remains unknown: Material change does not show their ethnic identity or a forced loss of home.
What is needed next: Test each proposed cause of departure or absorption as a separate process.

Link to this entry

Lontor and Selama removal

Place and era: Banda Islands; 1621 source context, exact event bounds unknown
What the evidence supports: The source links forced resident removal to VOC control and later plantation use.
What remains unknown: The source does not prove removal of all islanders or each captive fate.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Lower Casamance settlement change

Place and era: Lower Casamance; change after about 300 CE in the source
What the evidence supports: A regional history describes changes in settlement, culture, and food production at these sites.
What remains unknown: Such changes do not show forced removal or a transfer of land control.
What is needed next: Read the cited site report for a specific loss of land or home.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Maghrib cultivated land shrinkage

Place and era: Maghrib; late medieval and early sixteenth-century context
What the evidence supports: A regional history describes less farmed land as nomadic groups extended control.
What remains unknown: The text does not name a specific seizure, affected tract, or forced departure.
What is needed next: Locate a specific act and tract before this regional pattern becomes a case.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Maghrib privateering and ransom

Place and era: Algiers and Tunis; late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century context
What the evidence supports: A regional history discusses ship capture, captives, and ransom in the ports.
What remains unknown: The text does not name a specific transfer or group with a new home.
What is needed next: Find a specific capture and home outcome before this pattern becomes a case.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Maghrib state restructuring

Place and era: Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli; early sixteenth-century context
What the evidence supports: A regional history describes changed states and a broad political crisis.
What remains unknown: The reviewed text does not show a defined forced move or land loss.
What is needed next: Review each state history for specific acts that affected people on occupied land.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Mago removal and attempted repeat removal

Place and era: Mago, Fiji; 1865–early 1866
What the evidence supports: The source describes removal, a short return for food and a new removal order.
What remains unknown: The dispatch of men does not prove completion of the second removal.
What is needed next: Complete the event and overlap review with that uncertainty intact.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Mahanaga and his group flee

Place and era: Sri Lanka. The account gives no firm calendar date.
What the evidence supports: The chronicle says Mahanaga fled to save his life. His wives, men and horses went with him to Rohana.
What remains unknown: The account does not show that the whole group faced the same threat. Their old rights and later return are unknown.
What is needed next: Assess this reported flight as one case. Keep the threat to his life distinct from later rule in Rohana.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Mahirakula’s Gandhara raid

Place and era: Gandhara; reported past, event date unknown
What the evidence supports: A translated text reports deaths and people placed under soldier control in an attributed raid.
What remains unknown: The text does not show where captives went, later return, or long-term rule over the region.
What is needed next: The case is prepared; it still needs checks before it goes live.

Link to this entry

Makhota’s compelled antimony mining

Place and era: Sarawak River basin; early nineteenth-century context
What the evidence supports: The source describes forced mine work and resistance to exactions.
What remains unknown: That labor coercion does not prove loss of homes or direct land seizure.
What is needed next: Find a land or residence outcome linked to the mine program.

Link to this entry

Manipuri captive removal during occupation

Place and era: Manipur to Burma; 1819–1826 campaign context, exact removal dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The source reports armies took captives from their homeland to Burma.
What remains unknown: Their home villages, destinations and later return remain unclear.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Marquesan valley-to-coast relocation

Place and era: Marquesas Islands; colonial context after 1842, exact move dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The source describes a required move from valley homes to the coast.
What remains unknown: The exact sites, means of force and later household fates remain unclear.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Maues captures Taxila

Place and era: Taxila; ancient context, capture date unknown
What the evidence supports: Puri attributes capture of the city from its prior ruler to Maues.
What remains unknown: The account does not show forced departures, deaths, or long-term control.
What is needed next: Prepare the city capture and check overlap with wider histories of the place.

Link to this entry

Mawanda takes land

Place and era: Singo and Bulamogi. The source gives a reign range across the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Mawanda seized Singo and took Bulamogi from Bunyoro. He placed his favorites over new territories. It also reports a Kyaggwe invasion.
What remains unknown: The Kyaggwe invasion does not prove Kyaggwe stayed under new rule. The source date labels differ. Home loss and links to other seizures remain unknown.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Maʻafu’s conquest in Lau

Place and era: Lau, Fiji; 1852–1869
What the evidence supports: The sources describe conquest and land changes in distinct phases.
What remains unknown: This parent case does not settle the separate island removals.
What is needed next: This case is in the atlas; its open source questions still need review.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Link to this entry

Merger or retreat

Place and era: Koten-Magos and nearby areas. The source gives a broad span from 1680 to 1830.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says farm groups merged with pastoral groups and changed their economy, or retreated west.
What remains unknown: The account keeps both paths open. Mixed livelihoods and drought remain part of it. The broad account can overlap the named Toposa, Poet and Okii processes.
What is needed next: This is a source lead. Resolve the land or home-loss unit before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Mid-Atoll Corridor clearance

Place and era: Kwajalein Atoll; decision in 1964, relocation in January 1965
What the evidence supports: The source reports a military corridor plan and later forced moves.
What remains unknown: The source does not give a full record of later access.
What is needed next: The case is prepared; it still needs checks before it goes live.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Link to this entry

Mountain communities seeking refuge

Place and era: Maghrib mountain communities; date unknown
What the evidence supports: A regional history describes mountain groups who sought refuge and resisted the Turks.
What remains unknown: The account does not identify a specific flight, its cause, or the land left behind.
What is needed next: Locate the refuge episode and affected group before admission review.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Moves from Baar

Place and era: Baar to Mount Kilak. The source gives no separate date.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Luo forays apparently drove three Madi-led groups south. It names Panyimur, Atyak and Koc-Pagak. They moved toward Mount Kilak.
What remains unknown: Apparently remains a limit on this claim. The nearby Nyilak tale is an allegory, not a second witness to these moves.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Mukurra captive transfer

Place and era: Mukurra to Egypt; 1276
What the evidence supports: The chapter reports captives brought to Egypt as slaves after the expedition.
What remains unknown: Their precise home tracts, work and later return remain unclear.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Link to this entry

Munia and Yanuyanu removal

Place and era: Munia and Yanuyanu, Fiji; June 1867 and later dispersal
What the evidence supports: The source describes removal under naval and property-claim pressure, with later dispersal.
What remains unknown: This does not prove a valid land sale or each later resident fate.
What is needed next: Resolve the link to the Lau parent before atlas use.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Murad bey’s hinterland conquest

Place and era: Tunis hinterland; source context around 1630
What the evidence supports: A regional history reports Murad bey conquered independent hinterland groups.
What remains unknown: The text does not identify a defined action or specific affected land.
What is needed next: Locate the groups and tracts without guessed events for each place name.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Naryn flight before reprisals

Place and era: Naryn; before the 1916 revolt and reprisals
What the evidence supports: A study reports flight from Naryn in response to rumors before the revolt and reprisals.
What remains unknown: The passage does not show a separate land outcome or distinct group from the wider China flight.
What is needed next: Clarify the group and land outcome without facts borrowed from another passage.

Link to this entry

Ncharé’s founding conquest and land division

Place and era: Foumban area, Cameroon; founding phase, exact calendar dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The sources describe conquest and division of kingdom lands with royal advisers.
What remains unknown: This does not prove confiscation of each household plot.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Ndori returns to Nduga

Place and era: Nduga. The source places Ndori in the early seventeenth century with doubt about the new dynasty.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Ruganzu Ndori took Nduga back. He and later rulers also gained land. They took back Bwanacyambwe, which links to the Gisaka account.
What remains unknown: These are distinct outcomes across more than one reign. The Nduga claim has no exact date or proof of wholesale replacement. This account links to the Gisaka loss.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Neutral people lost homes in attacks on their villages

Place and era: Neutral villages in the southern Ontario area. The source reports one village lost in 1650. It reports two more lost in 1651.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports that one Neutral village was destroyed in 1650. He reports that two villages were destroyed in 1651.
What remains unknown: The reports do not fix all village sites, later use or the fate of every resident. Defeat does not mean that a people died out.
What is needed next: Keep the reported losses separate. Trace later homes and land use for each loss.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

New homes and moves in the American Bottom

Place and era: The American Bottom in Illinois. Dye uses AD 650 to 900 for one phase. His next phase spans AD 900 to 1050. The field report adds AD 400 to 650 as earlier context. Dates for local moves remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Dye suggests that some settlers came from nearby areas. He later describes moves from uplands to river plains and larger villages. The field report records repeated use of homes. At Sprague, soil in one house pit predates a fire. The report suggests a return to homes and food stores.
What remains unknown: The causes of the moves and earlier land use remain open. Fire does not prove that someone drove people from their homes. Wasps can nest in homes that people still use. The proposed return does not establish who returned. Some tables in the report conflict.
What is needed next: The selected report sections are complete. Keep both Dye phases distinct. Keep earlier land use as a separate open question. Revisit local causes or loss of homes with new evidence.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Ngalama’s reconquests

Place and era: Mwanambinyi and Mange’s tracts, southern Africa; date unknown
What the evidence supports: A chapter preview says Ngalama took back breakaway tracts and widened his control.
What remains unknown: The preview does not show one campaign, forced departures, or precise tract bounds.
What is needed next: Clarify the separate acts and affected lands before admission review.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Ngbandi flight tradition

Place and era: Central Africa; tradition places migration around 1300–1500
What the evidence supports: The reference work reports a tradition of flight under outside pressure.
What remains unknown: The origin tract and direct land outcome remain unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the tradition and separate flight from later settlement.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Ngāti Ira departure from harbour shores

Place and era: Wellington harbour; late 1820s source context, exact dates unknown
What the evidence supports: A historical text reports attacks that drove people from the shores and likely refuge elsewhere.
What remains unknown: The text does not show every resident left or that all found new homes.
What is needed next: Prepare the accepted departure account and keep groups in each phase separate.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Northern Sanhaja grazing under Maghrawa control

Place and era: Dar’a, Aghmat and Tamdult; early eleventh-century context, operation dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The reference work describes control of pastures used by northern Sanhaja groups.
What remains unknown: That control does not prove physical expulsion or permanent loss of every right.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Nudiya falls and the king flees

Place and era: From Nudiya to the broad eastern hinterland. The chapter dates this to the early thirteenth century.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Muhammad Bakhtiyar took the city of Nudiya. King Lakshmana Sena and his retainers fled east.
What remains unknown: The chapter does not give the fate of the other residents or an exact place of refuge. This sentence has no attached note.
What is needed next: The review accepts the source-only profile. The capture and elite flight remain source reports. The other residents' fate remains unknown. Keep this case inactive.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Old clan lands and rule

Place and era: The Great Lakes region. The source spans the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries and some later changes.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says new dynasties took over old clan states over time. Some local powers and ritual roles survived.
What remains unknown: Some clans mixed groups or lacked one tract of land. The account does not establish one act or a shared fate for all clans.
What is needed next: This is a source lead. Resolve the land or home-loss unit before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Orders for temple staff from Chola villages

Place and era: Chola villages in South Asia. Texts 69 and 70 place the orders before year 29 of the reign. The part of text 57 we read has no date. Its ruler is uncertain.
What the evidence supports: Texts 69 and 70 report orders for villages to supply temple staff and guards. They list pay in grain and cash. Villages were to pay guards from taxes they owed. The related text 57 lists guard duties for named villages.
What remains unknown: The texts do not show if each order was carried out. Pay does not prove free choice. Effects on homes, land rights and local rule remain open. Text 57 describes a copy of words, not a move of people.
What is needed next: Trace what the orders meant for the people and land in each village. Keep the source units distinct. Check whether the staff served and what changed for local people.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Ottoman direct control restored in Tripoli

Place and era: Tripoli; source reports 1835
What the evidence supports: A regional history reports troops ashore and restored direct rule.
What remains unknown: The account does not show resident removal or the full affected tract.
What is needed next: Review links with prior city cases before atlas review.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Owasco villages join for defence

Place and era: Northeast North America. Dye places the Owasco context from 900 to 1300. These are source dates, not fixed dates for one move.
What the evidence supports: Dye reports that allied groups moved into fewer, larger villages. Keener describes shifts in where people lived. He treats defence as a possible cause. Many early villages had no walls.
What remains unknown: Local force and loss at each tract remain open. Keener also reports a disputed model in which newcomers drove earlier groups away. He gives an in-place account too. The cited field studies remain unread.
What is needed next: Check the local change in homes or land use. Keep the defence and migration claims distinct.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Padhola land gains

Place and era: Land south and east of the first Padhola settlement. The source also describes later conflict near Tororo.
What the evidence supports: The chapter calls the first site unoccupied. It reports later land gains and Maasai conflict after about 1650.
What remains unknown: The later gains have no stated prior holders or process. The conflict has no stated land outcome. These claims do not prove one forced land loss.
What is needed next: This is a source lead. Resolve the land or home-loss unit before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Pala rule grows

Place and era: Varendra and Magadha toward Kanauj. The chapter sets this in the late eighth and early ninth centuries.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says the Pala king Dharmapala took control of more land.
What remains unknown: The exact unit and prior control remain unclear. A broad claim of royal rule does not settle each local outcome.
What is needed next: The review accepts the source-only profile. Prior control and the history of the tract and its people remain open. Keep this case inactive.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Pallan village destruction

Place and era: Pallan, North Asia; source reports 1720
What the evidence supports: Jochelson reports a ruined village after a tribute expedition and night attack.
What remains unknown: The text does not show later land use, departure, return barriers, or all resident fates.
What is needed next: Review links with the wider campaign and keep the reported year qualified.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Paluo states absorb units

Place and era: Paluo states and related groups. The source gives no date for each act.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Paluo states took in small units. Some local leaders kept their office by birth. Puranga and Payera also took in small units.
What remains unknown: The separate units, dates and rights remain unclear. These changes relate to Paluo flight and formation without one shared event or population by default.
What is needed next: This is a source lead. Resolve the land or home-loss unit before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

People leave homes and join villages in the Midsouth

Place and era: The Midsouth. Dye places this regional pattern around AD 900 to 1000. Dates for each move remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Dye reports that people left settled areas, which became buffers. Elsewhere, people joined in larger villages for safety. He links these changes to stronger hostilities.
What remains unknown: The regional account leaves the linked tracts and groups unclear. It does not prove who caused each move or what control followed.
What is needed next: Define a bounded tract and process from the report. Keep the hostile pressure and the reported moves clear.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

People leave the town of Hanhlipinkya to stay safe

Place and era: North America, in the source account. The date and exact site of Hanhlipinkya are unknown.
What the evidence supports: The 1896 English account by Cushing says leaders led clan groups to safety. Fire, fumes and earth movement then destroyed homes at Hanhlipinkya.
What remains unknown: The account does not prove that these acts took place. It does not report a human seizure of the place or human forced removal. The cause and date remain unknown.
What is needed next: Keep this account as an origin lead. Find a direct human seizure, control change or forced departure first.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Pokoinu chiefs and Puri

Place and era: Pokoinu, Rarotonga; date unknown
What the evidence supports: An article on court testimony reports chiefs expelled, land given to allies, and Puri restored with new duties.
What remains unknown: The text does not show if the other chiefs or their families returned.
What is needed next: Prepare the accepted land account for atlas review and keep the family questions open.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Princes who lost control at Minnagara

Place and era: Minnagara, an inland city in the report. Its modern site and the dates of the acts are unknown.
What the evidence supports: Schoff translates a report in the Periplus. It says Parthian princes at Minnagara drove one another out. This describes a repeated loss of rule.
What remains unknown: The text does not name each prince or date each act. It does not show physical removal of princes or residents. Schoff proposes dates and sites in later notes.
What is needed next: The source review and first assessment are complete. Keep this record inactive. The fate of the residents remains unknown.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Qasr Ibrim capture and occupation

Place and era: Qasr Ibrim, Egypt; 1172
What the evidence supports: The chapter reports capture of the town, a tortured bishop and a church made into a mosque.
What remains unknown: This does not prove that all residents left or that the conquest lasted.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Link to this entry

Ram Mesa Pithouse archaeological comparison

Place and era: Ram Mesa Pithouse; early Pueblo I context, event date unknown
What the evidence supports: An article cites this site among examples discussed in relation to violence.
What remains unknown: The reviewed text does not show forced departure or a land outcome here.
What is needed next: Review the cited site evidence for a specific process that affected homes.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Reported Bas-Zaïre family expulsion

Place and era: Bas-Zaïre, Congo; 15 October 1994
What the evidence supports: The UN report describes an alleged expulsion of families classed as outsiders.
What remains unknown: The broader campaign does not prove the later fate of each family.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Reported Christian removal in 1138

Place and era: Andalusia to Morocco; reported in 1138
What the evidence supports: The ledger lists a report of a later Christian removal.
What remains unknown: The order, affected groups and land loss are unclear.
What is needed next: Review the order, the groups and the land outcome.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Reported forced move of Susquehannock people

Place and era: Dye reports a move from Pennsylvania to Maryland in 1675. This is a source date, not an adopted event date.
What the evidence supports: Dye reports that Susquehannock people were forced to move south. The text also describes captives who became part of Iroquois groups.
What remains unknown: The actor and the share of people moved remain open. We cannot link all the captives in that passage to this move. Their later roles are separate. Dye cites work that we did not read.
What is needed next: Check the bounds of this reported move and who drove it. Trace the captive passage as a separate question.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Reported royal conquest of the city of the Mallas

Place and era: South Asia source report. The text names the city of the Mallas. The date and exact modern site are unknown.
What the evidence supports: The translated royal text describes plans for an army move. It reports conquest of the city of the Mallas and the return of the king.
What remains unknown: The fate of households and their land rights is unknown. How long control lasted is unknown. New land gains or renewed earlier control remain unknown.
What is needed next: Prepare an atlas draft from the source assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Reported war and camp access on the Alaska coast

Place and era: The Alaska coast. The date of the reported events is unknown.
What the evidence supports: A published oral account reports raids, forced capture, and destroyed camps and property. It also reports freer use of places to camp.
What remains unknown: The account includes spirit stories. It does not fix a date or show a land title change. The event to assess remains unresolved.
What is needed next: The Murrelet-point fort attack has a separate child record. The other war events still need review. Keep each side and its acts distinct.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Return-exclusion decision

Place and era: Issyk-Kul and Pishpek; 1917 narrative context
What the evidence supports: A study reports a decision to restrict return, with exceptions.
What remains unknown: The text does not show who enforced it, on what grounds, or for how long.
What is needed next: Clarify who made the decision and if it kept specific people from their land.

Link to this entry

Rights over pasture

Place and era: Rwanda. The source links gikingi to the late eighteenth century.
What the evidence supports: The chapter describes gikingi rights for important herd owners. They gained sole rights to pasture. They also gained rights to rule resident families.
What remains unknown: The estates, families and earlier rights remain unknown. The related ubuhake account need not involve the same people. Loss of crop rights or homes is unknown.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Robert’s Small House archaeological comparison

Place and era: Robert’s Small House; late Pueblo I context, event date unknown
What the evidence supports: A comparative article discusses this site and cites a revised occupation date.
What remains unknown: The reviewed comparison does not show a defined forced process or loss of home.
What is needed next: Review the cited site evidence and keep the occupation date distinct from any event date.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Rock Island refuge

Place and era: Cedar Mesa, Utah. The study assumes use from about 200 to 400 CE. The event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: The study describes a refuge on this mesa for nearby groups.
What remains unknown: The study does not establish one forced departure or loss of home or land.
What is needed next: Read the occupation record for evidence that a group lost its home or land.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Roi and Namur removal

Place and era: Roi and Namur, Marshall Islands; 1960
What the evidence supports: The source reports removal from both islands for renewed military use.
What remains unknown: The destinations of each group remain unclear.
What is needed next: The case is prepared; it still needs checks before it goes live.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Link to this entry

Sacred Ridge residential destruction

Place and era: Sacred Ridge; late eighth- or early ninth-century deposit context
What the evidence supports: Site authors link local violence to roof destruction and the end of home use at one feature.
What remains unknown: The evidence does not show each victim home, an exact attack date, or permanent whole-site loss.
What is needed next: The case is prepared; it still needs checks before it goes live.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Saharan raiding references

Place and era: Sahara and southern trading regions; ancient context
What the evidence supports: A regional history discusses Saharan traders and reports of slave raids to the south.
What remains unknown: The reviewed text does not name a specific captured group, removal, or land outcome.
What is needed next: Locate the cited ancient texts and identify the place and people affected.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Saka pressure and lower Indus movement

Place and era: Lower Indus; ancient source context
What the evidence supports: Puri reports that a Parthian barrier forced Saka groups toward the lower Indus. He describes other routes and later arrivals too.
What remains unknown: The account does not show that residents lost their land. It does not prove one group followed each route or stayed there permanently.
What is needed next: Keep this reported forced move as one research record. The other routes and the fate of prior residents remain open.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Sanqare Fulbe violence in Massina

Place and era: Massina, West Africa; Sonni ʿAlī’s reign, exact campaign date unknown
What the evidence supports: The sources report armed conflict and massacre of a named clan.
What remains unknown: Their specific land-loss outcome remains unclear.
What is needed next: Review the chronicles and link the clan to a bounded tract outcome.

Link to this entry

Sao forced from ancestral homes

Place and era: Lake Chad area; Idris Alawoma’s reign, 1564–1596
What the evidence supports: The reference work describes attacks that forced residents from ancestral homes.
What remains unknown: The separate attacks and affected home tracts remain unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the accounts and separate attacks from refuge moves.

Link to this entry

Sarawak pass controls and custodial transfer

Place and era: Sarawak to Kuching; nineteenth-century records, enforcement dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The account says authorities took workers without passes to the named city as prisoners.
What remains unknown: The length of custody, later work and return remain unclear.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Link to this entry

Seminole formation and refuge

Place and era: Northern and central Florida; eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries
What the evidence supports: The Tribal account describes local survivors who joined other groups and people in flight.
What remains unknown: The account does not yet link those arrivals to a specific local land loss.
What is needed next: Find a bounded process and a direct land outcome for an affected group or tract.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Link to this entry

Sena and Guttaka take a kingdom

Place and era: Sri Lanka. The account gives no firm calendar date.
What the evidence supports: The chronicle says Sena and Guttaka took the realm by force. It also calls their rule just.
What remains unknown: The account does not show who left their homes or lost rights to land. The wider effects on residents are unknown.
What is needed next: Assess this reported takeover as one case. Keep the source limits and unknown resident outcomes in view.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Senas take the capital

Place and era: Vikrampur, early in the twelfth century in this account.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says the Senas displaced Varman rule at Vikrampur. It links this to their move east.
What remains unknown: The chapter does not state that the people of the city left. Their land rights and homes remain separate questions.
What is needed next: The review accepts the source-only profile. The history of the land and its people remains open. Keep this case inactive.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Sew-Ghafata residence loss and flight

Place and era: Lake Chad region; Idris’s reign context, exact episode dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The translations describe raids and destruction that caused flight and loss of homes.
What remains unknown: The dispatch passage concerns residents in one translation but forces of the ruler in another.
What is needed next: Keep that disagreement in any atlas change.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Sibe soldier and family relocation

Place and era: Manchuria to Ili; ordered movement in 1764, full event bounds unresolved
What the evidence supports: The sources describe ordered moves of soldiers and families, followed by new villages.
What remains unknown: Individual choice, means of force and loss of prior land rights remain unclear.
What is needed next: Assess the origin constraints and destination land rights separately.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Sinbyuyin campaign captive removal

Place and era: Manipur to Burma; reported as 1763 or 1764, chronology unresolved
What the evidence supports: The synthesis reports that invaders returned with prisoners.
What remains unknown: The campaign year and destination homes remain unclear.
What is needed next: Resolve the source dates and complete the event and overlap review.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Soba capture and resident dispersal

Place and era: Soba, Sudan; late medieval context, capture date unknown
What the evidence supports: The chapter reports traditions of city capture and resident dispersal.
What remains unknown: The date, coalition and probable destruction do not form one settled account.
What is needed next: Keep those limits in any atlas change.

Link to this entry

Solomon Islands land transactions

Place and era: Solomon Islands; 1881–1900 source context, event bounds unresolved
What the evidence supports: The sources describe land deals that included villages and later disputes.
What remains unknown: The owners, users and consent for each deal remain unclear.
What is needed next: Choose specific deals and test consent and land outcomes.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Spanish forts in the Maghrib

Place and era: Oran, Tripoli, Peñon, and La Goulette; 1505–1574 context
What the evidence supports: A regional history describes Spanish forts and garrisons in a broad campaign.
What remains unknown: The account does not show each site capture, resident fate, or exact event date.
What is needed next: Examine each site for an attested action and land outcome.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Spanish recapture of Tunis

Place and era: Tunis; source reports 1573
What the evidence supports: A regional history reports Spanish recapture of the city in the stated year.
What remains unknown: The account does not show resident outcomes or separate harm from the adjacent captures.
What is needed next: Review shared people and land across the linked changes in city control.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Spanish Santiago settlement on Pohnpei

Place and era: Mesenieng, Pohnpei; 1887
What the evidence supports: The sources describe land taken for a fort and troops sent to compel labor.
What remains unknown: The local land holders and later tract outcome remain unclear.
What is needed next: Separate land seizure from labor demands and combat, then trace later use.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Link to this entry

Support for settler land appropriation

Place and era: Central Asia; 1916 context
What the evidence supports: A study describes state support for violent settler land seizure.
What remains unknown: The passage does not show which parcels changed hands or whether planned actions occurred.
What is needed next: Identify a completed seizure, affected people, and tract before admission review.

Link to this entry

Sēfuwa withdrawal from Kanem

Place and era: Kanem to Borno; late fourteenth-century context, chronology unresolved
What the evidence supports: The sources describe forced retreat of the royal group and forces.
What remains unknown: This does not prove departure of the general population.
What is needed next: Resolve the chronology and the limits of this elite and military removal.

Link to this entry

Tama Ariki and Avaavaroa

Place and era: Avaavaroa, Rarotonga; date unknown
What the evidence supports: An article on court testimony reports expulsion of the named chief and division of his land.
What remains unknown: The text does not show what happened to his family or how much land changed hands.
What is needed next: Prepare the accepted land account for atlas review without guessed family outcomes.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Tatala military pressure and flight

Place and era: Lake Chad region; Idris’s reign context, exact episode dates unknown
What the evidence supports: The translation links attacks to flight and loss of homes.
What remains unknown: The precise dates, group limits and later destinations remain unclear.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Tavatoma village burning

Place and era: Tavatoma, North Asia; date unknown
What the evidence supports: Jochelson recounts a force that barred house exits and burned the village homes.
What remains unknown: The account does not show later land possession, all resident fates, or the event date.
What is needed next: Review overlap with broader conquest histories and keep the unknown outcomes visible.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Te Heke Niho-puta departure

Place and era: Taranaki to Waikanae and Wellington Harbour; about 1824
What the evidence supports: The sources link planned retaliation to departure and new homes farther south.
What remains unknown: The exact dates and identity of each later migrant remain unclear.
What is needed next: Review the open source questions before any further atlas change.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Tellem departure tradition

Place and era: Bandiagara toward Yatenga; roughly fourteenth-century context
What the evidence supports: The reference work reports a tradition that links new arrivals to flight of prior residents.
What remains unknown: The causal process and affected land remain unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the tradition and test the departure and land link.

Link to this entry

The loss of Buwekula

Place and era: Buwekula. The source places Junju and Kamanya within one broad span.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Kamanya seized this tract from Bunyoro. It reports a loss of rule, with no claim that all people left.
What remains unknown: The exact date and local land rights remain unknown. This claim can overlap the broader Bunyoro loss of pasture.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Thomas tale of sale and forced court stay

Place and era: Syria and the court of Gondophares. The precise court site is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Puri relates a tale in which a merchant buys Thomas in Syria and takes him to a royal court. He also reports a forced stay.
What remains unknown: Puri calls these accounts legends. A match with the dates of a ruler does not prove that the sale, trip or forced stay took place.
What is needed next: Assess the claims in the source about sale, travel and court residence. Do not infer a precise court site from the tale.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Tikar–Tumu alliance and dominance

Place and era: Bamenda, Cameroon; tentative seventeenth-century context
What the evidence supports: The reference work describes migrant dominance and adoption of local language and institutions.
What remains unknown: This does not prove departure of residents or direct land loss.
What is needed next: Find a bounded land or residence outcome.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Tlemcen capital taken

Place and era: Tlemcen; early modern context, capture date unknown
What the evidence supports: A regional history states that the capital fell to the Turks.
What remains unknown: The account does not show resident expulsion, deaths, or long-term property loss.
What is needed next: Prepare the accepted control-transfer account and check its links with other conquests.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Tongan departure from Safotu

Place and era: Safotu, Samoa; date unknown
What the evidence supports: A recorded tradition describes Tongan residents who left after defeat and peace.
What remains unknown: The account does not show who all the residents were or where they went.
What is needed next: Prepare the accepted account for atlas review and keep those population links open.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Toposa forced north

Place and era: Dodoth, in the 1780s as the source tells it.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says proto-Dodo moved north from Apule. This forced the Toposa community that lived there to move north.
What remains unknown: The exact tract and number of people remain unknown. The account also describes mixed livelihoods and later Isera ties.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Tripoli taken in 1551

Place and era: Tripoli; source reports 1551
What the evidence supports: A regional history reports the capture of the city in the stated year.
What remains unknown: The account does not show resident removal, deaths, or later ownership of their land.
What is needed next: Prepare the accepted city capture with those resident outcomes left unknown.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Tumat and Darkhan movement

Place and era: Middle Lena and Vilyuy; date unknown
What the evidence supports: An article reports Tumat displacement and a separate story of sons who left after a dispute.
What remains unknown: The text does not show one shared forced move or a fixed group identity.
What is needed next: Separate the stories and test their causes and effects on occupied land.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Tunis retaken in 1574

Place and era: Tunis; source reports 1574
What the evidence supports: A regional history reports another capture of the city in the stated year.
What remains unknown: The account does not show resident outcomes or separate harm from the earlier captures.
What is needed next: Review shared people and land across the linked changes in city control.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Tunis taken in 1569

Place and era: Tunis; source reports 1569
What the evidence supports: A regional history reports the capture of the city in the stated year.
What remains unknown: The account does not show resident outcomes or separate harm from the later recaptures.
What is needed next: Review the scope of the linked changes in city control for the atlas.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Two kings flee west

Place and era: Rwanda and Nduga. The source sets this in the sixteenth century. It gives more than one invasion tradition.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says two kings fled west after Nyoro invasions. It names Kigeri Mukobanya and Mibambwe Mutabazi. It also describes a shift to Nduga.
What remains unknown: The flight of all subjects is unknown. The episodes need distinct units. The related Gisaka occupation can overlap their land-control story.
What is needed next: This is a source lead. Resolve the land or home-loss unit before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Tượng Lâm suppression and garrison

Place and era: Tượng Lâm district; early second-century CE context
What the evidence supports: The scholarly table reports a crushed local revolt and troops left in the district.
What remains unknown: This does not prove loss of homes or new settlers in their place.
What is needed next: Resolve the direct land outcome and overlap with the prior regional case.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Ulu Horo’s family near Lake Muryu

Place and era: Lake Muryu; date unknown
What the evidence supports: A scholarly article recounts a legend of the destruction of Ulu Horo and his family.
What remains unknown: The legend does not show a defined land loss or destruction of all Horo groups.
What is needed next: Clarify the story source and land outcome without guessed descent.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Unangax̂ wartime removal

Place and era: Aleutian and Pribilof islands to southeast Alaska; wartime context, exact bounds unknown
What the evidence supports: The source reports ordered removal, camps and blocked return to named villages.
What remains unknown: The source does not prove that every group lost the right to return.
What is needed next: Resolve links to the broader Alaska case before atlas use.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Use of the Peter enclosure

Place and era: Clay places Peter Village in Fayette County, Kentucky, in the Early Woodland period. Dye places the Peter enclosure in northwestern Ohio. This place conflict remains unresolved. Early Woodland is context, not a date for forced removal.
What the evidence supports: Clay reports post holes, burned wood, a ditch, and an inner bank. He interprets a stockade before the ditch. He reports unfinished mineral weights and small human skull fragments. Defense and sacred use remain possible. His small sample does not establish the uses of the whole site.
What remains unknown: The cause of the fire and the later use of the site remain unknown. Clay also considers decay or post removal. The skull fragments do not establish a violent death. No forced departure or loss of access follows from these traces alone.
What is needed next: Keep both place accounts explicit. Seek evidence about site use and any imposed change in access or control.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Velvikudi grant-rights loss

Place and era: Velvikudi; earlier loss and later renewal, calendar dates unknown
What the evidence supports: A charter account reports lost village grant-rights and later legal renewal.
What remains unknown: The text does not show eviction or full recovery of rights and homes after renewal.
What is needed next: Keep the earlier loss and later legal phases distinct, with the final outcome unknown.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Viet captive transfer at Drang Lai

Place and era: Land of the Viets to an unresolved destination; attested by 1409/1410, transfer date unknown
What the evidence supports: The text says its authority captured Viets, moved them and assigned them to Milady the Mother.
What remains unknown: Their prior homes, exact destination and service status remain unclear.
What is needed next: Resolve the actors and the captives' links to the affected land.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Vijaya and Kuvanna chronicle narratives

Place and era: Sri Lanka; ancient narrative context, historical event dates unknown
What the evidence supports: A chronicle tells separate stories of city deaths, household exclusion, child refuge, and new families.
What remains unknown: The text does not show which human groups lost which land in these stories.
What is needed next: Review each story and its land outcome without guessed links to people alive today.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Village land rights in a royal charter from Udayendiram

Place and era: South Asia. The text names the village as Udayachandramangalam. The date of the event remains unknown.
What the evidence supports: The charter reports loss of prior holders' land rights for a royal grant.
What remains unknown: The exact rights, later possession and loss of homes remain unknown.
What is needed next: Check how the atlas shows this case with an unknown date.

Link to this entry

Violent deaths at Cherry

Place and era: Cherry in the Lower Tennessee Valley. Dye places the site in the Archaic period. Exact dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Dye discusses a possible massacre and violent deaths at Cherry. He links the pattern to a possible dispute over resources.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish a change in land access, control, or homes. Windover is a separate site and question.
What is needed next: Define any link between the violence and a change in use of the site or homes.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Virgin Lands settlement

Place and era: Northern Kazakhstan; program began in 1954, later bounds unknown
What the evidence supports: The sources describe state-led farm settlement and use of pasture for crops.
What remains unknown: This does not prove that the land was empty or all local people left.
What is needed next: Resolve links to other steppe and deportation cases before atlas use.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

War captives in Songhay farming settlements

Place and era: Songhay; Askiya Muhammad’s reign, 1493–1529
What the evidence supports: The reference work describes farm settlements for people enslaved in war.
What remains unknown: Their origin tracts and specific destination settlements remain unclear.
What is needed next: Find a bounded capture and settlement process in the sources.

Link to this entry

War splits Buzinza

Place and era: Buzinza, Rusubi and the coast. The source sets the split at the start of the nineteenth century.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says a war for the throne split Buzinza. Rusubi and the coast broke away under named rulers.
What remains unknown: This was an internal struggle. The account does not establish foreign conquest or household flight. Kakaraza had earlier fought off attacks.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Western grants redirect taxes

Place and era: In the west, along the Bhagirathi-Hooghly basin. The chapter sets these grants after the ninth century.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says villagers had to pay the land donees in cash and kind. The fields were already in use.
What remains unknown: The chapter does not report eviction. It leaves open whether former users lost rights or whether tax claims changed hands.
What is needed next: Define the grant group and the rights that changed. A fiscal change alone does not settle a land loss.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

What befell the Poet people?

Place and era: The Kapoeta river, in the 1820s as the source tells it.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Korwakol and Jie Rengen joined to destroy a Poet farm community.
What remains unknown: The fate of its people and homes remains unclear. Destruction alone does not tell us who died or left.
What is needed next: This is a source lead. Resolve the land or home-loss unit before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

What links Ipiutak warfare and later change?

Place and era: Northern and western Alaska. The source gives broad age ranges, not a firm event date.
What the evidence supports: The 2018 report describes violent injuries. It also reports later population replacement. It does not link those injuries to one forced loss of homes or land. Anderson reports houses, camps and later house abandonment at Cape Krusenstern. He also describes resource use. House 30 burned. Three partly burned skeletons lay beneath the fallen wood. Anderson reports a possible earlier wound in one adult. He interprets the positions of the children as possible attempts to dig down and escape.
What remains unknown: The report also notes trade and some intermarriage. Ipiutak is an archaeological label, not proof of one modern people. Dates and the causes of change remain unclear. The cause of the fire is unknown. The chapter does not establish an attack, a forced move or the fate of the whole community. Raghavan discusses Dorset and Thule farther east. That text reports no massacre evidence. It does not rule out the Ipiutak injuries.
What is needed next: Keep the house fire and later replacement claim separate. Ask whether a source links a human act to loss of homes, land use or control. The Ipiutak chapter and its figures and plates give context. They do not resolve that link.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Link to this entry

Where did Jaki extend his rule?

Place and era: Madi country. The source gives no exact date for the extension.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Jaki and his sons extended their rule. In Terego, Madi elders accepted Banale as chief.
What remains unknown: The account does not state how Jaki gained rule. The elders accepted Banale. The idea that they sought to avoid Jaki remains open.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Whistling Elk burned lodges

Place and era: Whistling Elk; departure date unknown
What the evidence supports: Excavators found a burned inner roof and a mostly unburned outer roof. Pots and tools lay on the floor. The authors infer a hasty departure and propose an attack as one possible cause.
What remains unknown: The cause, forced departure and later control of the land remain unknown. The finds do not prove an attack.
What is needed next: Find evidence for the cause of departure and any loss of homes or land.

Larry J. Zimmerman, Initial Coalescent: A Blending of Cultures, South Dakota Archaeology, Educational Series 8, PDF page 3; publication year and printed pagination unverified.
Dennis L. Toom and Kenneth L. Kvamme, “The ‘Big House’ At Whistling Elk Village (39HU242): Geophysical Findings and Archaeological Truths,” Plains Anthropologist 47(180) (2002), printed pages 5–16 (PDF pages 2–13).
Kenneth L. Kvamme, “Archaeological prospecting in fortified Great Plains villages: new insights through data fusion, visualization and testing,” Archaeological Prospection: 4th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection (2001), printed pages 141–143 (PDF pages 1–3); additional publication, not an established independent witness.

Link to this entry

Who sought refuge by the Nile?

Place and era: Pakwac-Pawir and lands west of Cwa. The source gives drought and refuge context.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says the influx apparently weakened the Paluo position. It describes a control dispute and Nyipir and Tifool followers who moved west.
What remains unknown: The famine, refuge influx and control conflict need distinct units. The axe is part of a tradition. Drought alone does not prove a forced land loss.
What is needed next: This is a source lead. Resolve the land or home-loss unit before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Who split the lands of Bugesera?

Place and era: Bugesera. The source gives both the end of the eighteenth century and the start of the nineteenth.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Rwanda and Burundi split Bugesera between them. It describes a loss of rule over a named land.
What remains unknown: The exact boundary and local rights remain unknown. The source does not report blanket eviction. An earlier king fled in a separate episode.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Who took rule in Mubari?

Place and era: Mubari. The source sets the occupation in the eighteenth century.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Rwanda occupied Mubari. It also describes Kivu shore settlements and other states that retreated or broke up.
What remains unknown: Those outcomes differ. Some old powers kept their independence under a kind of protectorate. The account does not prove one shared tract or mass home loss.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve the unit and its limits before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Who took the Bongera lands?

Place and era: Bongera lands in Rwanda. The source gives no date for this annexation.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says Cyirima Rugwe annexed the Bongera lands.
What remains unknown: The early origin of the principality does not date this act. The local rights and residents remain unknown. Lack of an exact year does not rule it out.
What is needed next: This is a candidate for study. Resolve its scope; an exact year is not a rule for entry.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Why did kings choose the island?

Place and era: Bukerebe. The source places the account in its eighteenth-century narrative.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says the Tatoga threat forced the kings to put their capital on the island. It does not name a former site.
What remains unknown: The former site and affected residents remain unknown. This does not prove that all people on the peninsula left or that Tatoga conquered it.
What is needed next: This is a source lead. Resolve the land or home-loss unit before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Why did people leave Buganda?

Place and era: Buganda to nearby states. The chapter describes a long process with no single act date.
What the evidence supports: The chapter links royal control to long rebellions and violence. It says more people went into exile in nearby states.
What remains unknown: The account does not identify one purge, one ruler or one group of exiles. Exact homes, destinations and dates remain unclear.
What is needed next: This is a source lead. Resolve the land or home-loss unit before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Winter clans enter a valley and settle

Place and era: North America, in the source account. The Snow-water valley and its springs have no exact modern map location. The date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: The 1896 English account by Cushing says the People of Winter fought into Snow-water valley. They first settled at springs that gave out mud.
What remains unknown: The account does not prove that these acts took place. It does not name prior residents or say that they lost homes. The date, exact site and length of the stay are unknown.
What is needed next: Find evidence for the time, place and prior residents. Keep their fate unknown.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Wintuan and Maiduan movement question

Place and era: California; source’s approximate relative date remains unverified
What the evidence supports: A study suggests southward moves. Golla adds a possible Wintuan spread based on language patterns.
What remains unknown: The link to a forced move or land loss is unknown. The excerpt is cut short; a Maiduan claim remains unverified.
What is needed next: Find the rest of the section. Keep the two groups and their land questions distinct.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Wolof expulsion in Koly’s conquests

Place and era: Futa Toro river valleys; early sixteenth-century context
What the evidence supports: The reference work reports a tradition of conquest and expulsion from river valleys.
What remains unknown: The exact campaigns, groups and land outcomes remain unclear.
What is needed next: Review the tradition and identify a bounded affected tract.

Link to this entry

Woodland violence and settlement in the Illinois valley

Place and era: Lower and central Illinois River valley; Late Woodland period, event dates unknown
What the evidence supports: Wilson reports skeletal injuries and interprets changes in settlements as partly due to hostilities.
What remains unknown: The chapter does not establish a forced departure from a defined place or the loss of land rights.
What is needed next: Read the cited field reports for evidence of who left, why they left and what happened to their land.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Young men leave elders

Place and era: The chapter describes several societies. It gives no one local episode or act date.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says some young men left to escape elders' control. The elders controlled cattle and marriage. They kept young men dependent.
What remains unknown: The local society and episode remain unclear. Pressure and movement need a clear land or home-loss unit. A lack of names or numbers does not rule it out.
What is needed next: This is a source lead. Resolve the land or home-loss unit before any case assessment.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Yuan removal in the Sayan-Altai

Place and era: Sayan-Altai; source places the account near 1293
What the evidence supports: A scholar says Kublai removed local residents and settled other people there.
What remains unknown: The text does not show the exact date, full scope, or long-term result.
What is needed next: Review which people and actions overlap with the related Yuan removals.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Zhalanash violence during return

Place and era: Zhalanash; return-period context, incident date unknown
What the evidence supports: A study reports hostility and deaths near a Cossack allotment.
What remains unknown: The passage does not show a defined land seizure or removal process.
What is needed next: Identify the affected people and a direct land or residence outcome.

Link to this entry

Beal reports a loss of rule at Pushkalavati

Place and era: A city in Gandhara, as named by Beal. The exact site and date remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Beal gives this report in a note to his translation. He says Alexander besieged and took the city from Astes or Hasti. He says Alexander put Sangaeus or Sanjaya in charge.
What remains unknown: The note does not establish the fate of the people in this city or the former ruler. The date, exact site and length of new rule remain unknown.
What is needed next: Seek evidence for the date and effects on residents. Keep this reported capture separate from claims about forced moves.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Bhir lane walls and public access

Place and era: Small lanes at Bhir Mound, Taxila, with the west end of Lane 2 as an example. The date remains unknown.
What the evidence supports: Marshall says cross-walls closed some small lanes and stopped public shortcuts. He thought those lanes seemed to belong to the houses beside them.
What remains unknown: The prior public right and any change in that right remain unknown. The account does not name who put up the walls or establish force, conflict or loss of homes.
What is needed next: Assess whether the lane barrier took a prior right of public access. Keep the described barrier distinct from a proved loss of rights. The cause of the closure remains unknown.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Bhir sack and possible loss of use

Place and era: The West Group at Bhir Mound, Taxila. Marshall places the sack in the early second century BCE. The date remains unassigned here.
What the evidence supports: Marshall reports that Bactrian Greeks sacked the city. He thinks the West Group buildings probably burnt at that time. He saw no sign of later buildings there.
What remains unknown: The link between the sack and fire remains uncertain. Fire alone does not show who caused it or what happened to residents. The end of use does not prove permanent loss.
What is needed next: Keep this reported sack and probable end of use as a separate research record. Seek evidence about the date and residents.

Sources: Source 1 · Source 2

Link to this entry

Reported loss of Murrelet-point fort

Place and era: Murrelet-point fort in a Tlingit oral account. Its modern site and the date of the attack remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: The account says a southern war party destroyed the fort and captured women there. A captive woman then named another town. That next attack is a separate event.
What remains unknown: The account includes spirit stories. The modern groups and the number of captives remain unknown. It does not show a permanent loss of land or a change in title.
What is needed next: Assess this reported fort loss as one event. Keep the other war events separate. Preserve the unknown date and the limits of the oral account.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Reported loss of village rights in Sonpur

Place and era: 12 villages in Sonpur. The date of the loss remains unknown. The 1831 grievances give context, not an exact date.
What the evidence supports: Dalton reports that a royal grant holder gave the 12 villages to Sikh farmers. Singrai Manki lost his village rights and control.
What remains unknown: The source does not establish that all residents left. The full village list, land title and duration of the loss remain unknown. The original deposition remains unread.
What is needed next: Keep this reported loss of village rights as one research record. Seek evidence about the date and effects on residents.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Reported loss of homes in eastern Wisconsin

Place and era: Eastern Wisconsin. The source gives regional dates up to AD 1300. Dates for each act remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Dye reports that Oneota groups drove local groups out or absorbed them. He reports later Oneota control of eastern Wisconsin.
What remains unknown: The cause of the Aztalan departure remains uncertain. The account does not establish the fate of each group.
What is needed next: Keep the reported loss of homes or control as one research record. Seek evidence about the dates and each group's fate.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Flight and return at Norris Farms

Place and era: Norris Farms 36 in the Illinois River valley. The source places village life around AD 1300. Dates of each attack remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Dye reports repeated attacks, flight and later return. Tubbs describes newer evidence that Oneota and Middle Mississippian people lived together at Morton Village. Her account retains both violence and cooperation.
What remains unknown: The place of each attack, the attackers and the burial party remain unclear. Newer, preliminary finds do not support an earlier theory of restricted access to food. This does not rule out brief flight or prove permanent loss of the village.
What is needed next: Keep the flight and return account distinct from the theory of restricted access to food. Check the original attack studies.

David H. Dye, War Paths, Peace Paths (2009), chapter 8, printed pages 130–131 (PDF pages 151–152); consulted synthesis, cited originals unread.
Ryan Maureen Tubbs, Ethnic Identity and Diet in the Central Illinois River Valley (Michigan State University doctoral dissertation, 2013), sections 3.4–3.5, printed pages 44–58 (PDF pages 63–77); these sections only, full dissertation and isotope results unread.

Link to this entry

Etowah: violent loss and later use

Place and era: Etowah, northern Georgia. The 2024 study places its violent collapse around 1325-1375 and later use by about 1400.
What the evidence supports: Dye gives an attack as one possible cause of abandonment. Sullivan and coauthors report a violent attack and loss of the town's former political role. They also report later use of the site.
What remains unknown: The attackers, the number affected and the fate of those who left remain unknown. Later use does not prove that the former residents returned. Both accounts draw on King, so they do not give two independent checks.
What is needed next: Assess the form of the attack and loss of residence at Etowah. Keep that loss separate from later use of the site.

David H. Dye (2009), War Paths, Peace Paths, chapter 9, pp. 153-154 (PDF pp. 174-175).
Lynne P. Sullivan, Kevin E. Smith, Scott C. Meeks and Shawn M. Patch (2024), "Tracking Mississippian Migrations from the Central Mississippi Valley to the Ridge and Valley with a Unified Absolute Chronology," American Antiquity 89(2): 221-237. DOI: 10.1017/aaq.2024.1. Relevant pages: 223, 225, 227, 229 and 232.

Link to this entry

Sri Lanka: proposed Naga arrival in the Iron Age

Place and era: Sri Lanka. The Iron Age is source context. The time and place of any land loss remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Deraniyagala proposes that people he links to the Nagas moved into land used by Yakka hunter-gatherers. This is a model.
What remains unknown: The people, route and land effects remain unresolved. The source also allows diffusion, local descent, shared ancestry, gene flow and drift.
What is needed next: Assess who moved and what happened to prior land use. Keep the source model and its alternatives open.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Sri Lanka: wet-rice growth and pressure on Yakka/Vadda life

Place and era: Sri Lanka. The early rice and town context gives no date or mapped area for this process.
What the evidence supports: Deraniyagala offers a model of Sinhalese wet-rice town growth. In his model, this growth forced Yakka/Vadda groups into a relict state. He also describes partial symbiosis. The groups kept their identity.
What remains unknown: The bounded people, place and land-use effects remain unresolved. This claim of pressure is a model, not an observed expulsion.
What is needed next: Assess the claimed pressure and its land-use effects. Keep partial symbiosis and retained identity in view.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Vijitanagara: the text says people fled from the river bank to this city

Place and era: Sri Lanka. The chronicle places this refuge in its ancient past. The date and exact route remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: The Mahavamsa says people on the river bank escaped death and sought protection in Vijitanagara. It calls them Damilas. This is a source term, with no fixed modern ethnic match.
What remains unknown: The people were soldiers, other residents, or both. Their mix remains unknown. Their number, homes and later fate also remain unknown. The later siege does not settle their fate. The chapter joins religious claims that devalue the dead with grief and a final adverse view of deaths from greed.
What is needed next: Assess who moved and what happened to their homes or land. Keep refuge and military retreat open as possible parts of this movement.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Vijitanagara: the text says the king took the city in a siege

Place and era: Sri Lanka. The chronicle places this siege in its ancient past. The date and exact site remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: The Mahavamsa reports that Dutthagamani took the fortified city after a siege. It describes deaths at the gates and in the streets. The narrator says he destroyed the city.
What remains unknown: The scope of the damage and the fate of residents remain unknown. The account does not establish total loss of life or a new resident group. Religious speech devalues the dead. The chapter also gives grief, restraint and rites for Elara. Its last verse condemns deaths from greed. Its large totals lack a verified count.
What is needed next: Keep the reported siege as one research record. Its effects on residents remain unknown.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Los Angeles land and water purchases in Owens Valley

Place and era: Owens Valley, California, in the early twentieth century and the 1920s. Exact process dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: The Commission describes City land and water purchases, water export and groundwater use. It says settlers lost land and Paiute people lost ranch jobs.
What remains unknown: The account does not define which Native land uses or homes these purchases displaced. Job loss alone does not prove land seizure. The later land exchange is a separate process.
What is needed next: Trace Native land and water use through the purchases. Distinguish forced loss from ordinary sales and the later exchange.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Owens Valley Paiute land exchange in the 1930s

Place and era: Bishop, Big Pine and Lone Pine, Owens Valley, California. The source gives both 1937 and 1939 for the exchange.
What the evidence supports: The Commission describes a federal and City land exchange. It reports a smaller occupied land base afterward. A plan named three valley reservations. Water export was one of several motives.
What remains unknown: Reports proposed moves outside the valley; a later plan named sites within it. The extent of actual moves remains unknown. Consent and force remain unresolved. Acreages and current water rights remain unverified.
What is needed next: Define the affected people, former tracts and land loss. Keep proposals distinct from actual land change. Resolve dates without an exact date rule.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Owens Valley Paiute removal to Fort Tejon and return

Place and era: Owens Valley and Fort Tejon in California. Settler entry dates to the 1800s in this account. Removal and return dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: The Owens Valley Indian Water Commission describes forced removal to Fort Tejon after conflict and massacres. Ancestors returned. They faced loss of land access and few choices beyond ranch labor.
What remains unknown: The number removed, return routes and full land loss remain unknown. The people continued to live in the valley. This question overlaps the broad California settler case.
What is needed next: Keep this forced removal and return as one research record. The death toll and terms of labor remain unknown.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Western Mono settlement inferred from shared speech

Place and era: Western Sierra Nevada, near the upper San Joaquin, Kings and Kaweah rivers. The date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Kroeber infers a recent western Mono settlement from similar speech across the Sierra. He names western groups and their neighbors.
What remains unknown: The account gives no arrival date or land seizure. Earlier residents and land outcomes remain unknown. Kroeber leaves group ties and boundaries unclear. His account includes colonial bias and continued Mono presence.
What is needed next: Define the people and land in this question. Compare it with the broad Numic spread case; do not assign its dates or victims.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Mayurasarman: a reported grant of land

Place and era: The poem names land from the western sea to Prehara. The Prehara boundary and the dates of the acts remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: The translated praise poem says Pallava rulers made Mayurasarman a friend. He served them, then received land under a pact against entry by others.
What remains unknown: This grant does not establish that people lost their homes. The prior rights, scope of control, and length of the grant remain unknown.
What is needed next: Keep the reported land grant as one research record. Its use on the ground and effects on prior users remain unknown.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Mayurasarman and the base he made in a forest

Place and era: The poem names a forest near Sriparvata. Kielhorn links that place to Srisaila. The dates and the bounds remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: The translated praise poem says Mayurasarman defeated Pallava frontier guards and made a base in the forest. It also praises his raids.
What remains unknown: A base alone does not establish a loss of land or access. The forest is not known to match the later grant.
What is needed next: Determine whether the forest base caused loss of land or access. Keep that question separate from the later grant.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Kakustha and kin who sought a place of refuge

Place and era: The poem places refuge in Kakustha territory. The dates, the home tracts, and the bounds remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: The translated praise poem says stronger parties harassed relatives. The relatives entered his land with their belongings and found shelter.
What remains unknown: Shelter does not establish a forced move or the loss of a home. It does not establish a loss for earlier residents.
What is needed next: Trace the pressure at the place of origin and any loss of homes. Assess any loss of land at the place of shelter on its own.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Burned sites and violent deaths in Gallina

Place and era: Gallina, New Mexico; medieval source context. Dates for each event remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Authors report burned structures at home sites, often with food stores. Some contexts include unburied people who died from violence.
What remains unknown: Fire causes and the loss of specific homes remain unresolved. Captivity is a theory. The source does not prove one forced regional departure.
What is needed next: Review the reported sites to define each process and its effect on homes or stores. Keep other fire causes in view.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A field grant at Nasik

Place and era: Near Nasik in western India; ancient period.
What the evidence supports: A royal order grants a named field to monks. It names a man who held the field before.
What remains unknown: The text does not explain the fate of people who used the field.
What is needed next: Check whether the grant took away earlier rights to the field.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Home loss in Embobut Forest

Place and era: Kenya, from late 2017. The report dates to 2018.
What the evidence supports: The rights commission reports forced evictions and burned homes. Its account uses interviews and site visits.
What remains unknown: The report gives no end date for the forced moves. It does not state where all affected people went.
What is needed next: Prepare this reviewed case for the atlas. Keep its unknown scale and later outcome clear.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Changes at coastal shell rings

Place and era: The report covers the southeast coast of North America. It concerns sites before written records.
What the evidence supports: The report reviews ring sites and changes in their use. It weighs sea rise, resource shifts and possible conflict.
What remains unknown: Possible conflict is a theory in this report. That theory does not establish a forced move or loss of land.
What is needed next: Trace the claims to site studies. Look for human acts that caused loss of homes or land use.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Forced move from the northern Kurils

Place and era: The move was from the northern Kurils to Shikotan. It took place in 1884.
What the evidence supports: A university page reports a forced move in 1884. The government of Japan forced the move. The page names northern Kuril Ainu as the people moved. It names Shikotan as their new home.
What remains unknown: This is a later summary, not an account from 1884. The route, length of stay and terms of return are unknown. Later population decline does not show a death count or its cause.
What is needed next: Prepare this reviewed case for the atlas. Keep its scale and later history unknown.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

The exile of Anwar

Place and era: Sonargaon in Bengal. The year is not known.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports an exile. Raja Ganesh sent Anwar to Sonargaon.
What remains unknown: The source names Anwar. It does not name people who went with him. Whether this claim fits a case stays open.
What is needed next: Review the named exile under the case rule. Keep any wider group unknown.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

The exile and return of Ala al-Haq

Place and era: From the capital to Sonargaon. The year is not known.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Sultan Sikandar sent Ala al-Haq into exile. He states that the exile ended after several years. Ala al-Haq was then free to return.
What remains unknown: Eaton cites a Sufi text for this claim. The exile names one man. Whether this claim fits a case stays open.
What is needed next: Review the exile and return as one claim. Keep the later return in view.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

The forced move of Tawwama

Place and era: From Delhi to Sonargaon. The year is not known.
What the evidence supports: A note in Eaton reports an exile. The Delhi court sent Tawwama to Sonargaon.
What remains unknown: The note names Tawwama, not his followers. It gives no year for the exile or return. Whether this claim fits a case stays open.
What is needed next: Review the named exile under the case rule. Keep the earlier move from Bukhara separate.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

The capture of Sylhet

Place and era: Sylhet town in Bengal.
What the evidence supports: Eaton cites a stone text for this claim. It names Sikandar Khan Ghazi as the conqueror. It puts the capture in 1303 or 1304.
What remains unknown: Ibn Battuta saw Shah Jalal much later. This visit does not attest to the earlier capture. The first site of the stone is not clear.
What is needed next: Review the town control claim on its own. Keep the saint and the conqueror separate.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A temple site in Deva Mahal

Place and era: Deva Mahal, a port in Bengal.
What the evidence supports: A late account names Jalal al-Din Tabrizi. It says that he pulled down a temple. It says that a Sufi rest house took its place.
What remains unknown: Eaton sees a later model of conquest in this account. The exact year is not known. Land bought for a kitchen is a separate claim.
What is needed next: Review the claim and its source limits. Keep the temple site and bought land separate.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A question about Shah Jalal and his followers

Place and era: Sylhet and the Bengal frontier.
What the evidence supports: Eaton cites a later account of Shah Jalal and his followers. It reports shares and leave to marry. Eaton links these to homes and local ties.
What remains unknown: The people and their rights remain unclear. Marriage or a new home does not prove forced removal. The town capture is a related but separate claim.
What is needed next: Trace the people and the rights in the account. Keep any link to the town capture open.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A crop levy near Habiganj

Place and era: Near Habiganj in Bengal.
What the evidence supports: Eaton cites a report by Ibn Battuta. It describes local people who grew crops. The report calls them non-Muslims under protection. A levy took a share of their crop.
What remains unknown: This is a tax report. It does not state a loss of land or homes. Any change in local rights stays open.
What is needed next: Review the local rights and the levy. Keep a tax claim apart from land loss.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Kaikaus and southeast Bengal

Place and era: Southeast Bengal. The report dates the conquest to 1291.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports a conquest under Kaikaus and a change in rule.
What remains unknown: The local rights and the fate of the people remain unknown.
What is needed next: Prepare this case for the atlas. Its local effects and later history stay unknown.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A conquest at Sonargaon

Place and era: Sonargaon in Bengal. The report concerns a medieval reign.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Fakhr al-Din took control of Sonargaon.
What remains unknown: The date of the act and its effect on local people remain unknown.
What is needed next: Define the tract and the change in control.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A conquest in Kamrup

Place and era: Kamrup. The report dates the conquest to 1358.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Sikandar took control of Kamrup.
What remains unknown: The local rights and the fate of the people remain unknown.
What is needed next: Keep this conquest apart from the later report under Husain Shah.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

New rule in east Bengal

Place and era: East Bengal. The report dates the new conquest to 1420.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports a new conquest after a revolt. He names Jalal al-Din Muhammad as the ruler.
What remains unknown: The tract and its link to the Deva revolt remain unclear.
What is needed next: Define the tract and the change in control. Keep the two reports apart.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Nobles and homes in the capital

Place and era: Bengal. The date of the residence rule is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Eaton states that nobles had to keep homes in the capital.
What remains unknown: The report does not state how this rule changed their other homes.
What is needed next: Define the residence rule and its effect on homes.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Property after a noble died

Place and era: Bengal. The date of the property rule is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Eaton describes a rule that gave half the property to the crown when a noble died.
What remains unknown: The report does not state which rights or land this rule affected.
What is needed next: Define the property rights and the effect of the rule.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Homes and fields at Hirakud

Place and era: Near Sambalpur, India. The book gives figures for 1954-55 and a summer 1955 start.
What the evidence supports: The book reports state-led moves as water covered homes and fields near Sambalpur. The book also reports plans to flood some land in Madhya Pradesh. Some buyers got less land as prices rose.
What remains unknown: The last move dates and later returns remain unclear. The book does not show full payment or new land for all people. Land rights for each person remain unclear.
What is needed next: Prepare this case for the atlas. Its final move dates and later outcomes stay unclear.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Ban on cutting trees

Place and era: Seraikella State, India. The start date is unknown; fieldwork took place in 1925.
What the evidence supports: The authors say the State did not allow the Ho to cut trees. They link the lack of firewood to a change from cremation to burial.
What remains unknown: The start date, reach and enforcement of the ban are unknown here. The account does not establish eviction or loss of homes.
What is needed next: Assess the loss of resource use as a separate unit. Keep the ban report apart from its stated link to funeral rites.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Burial ban at Paharpur

Place and era: Seraikella area, India. The event date is unknown; fieldwork took place in 1925.
What the evidence supports: The authors use kili as a term for clan. The authors say the Mundri kili took control of a burial ground once linked to the Haiburu kili. They say the site no longer allowed Haiburu burial.
What remains unknown: The source does not state how or when the site changed hands. It does not establish force, deaths or loss of homes.
What is needed next: Assess the loss of burial use under the atlas rules. Keep dates, force and effects on residents unknown unless supported.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Homes at Hulas

Place and era: Hulas, northern India. The report describes homes from Harappan times and later periods. Dates remain uncertain.
What the evidence supports: Excavators found homes, hearths and rebuilt floors. The report places later homes north of an earlier settlement.
What remains unknown: The report does not state why the earlier settlement ended. It does not state whether anyone forced people out or where they went.
What is needed next: Examine why use of the old homes ended. Examine how later people came to use nearby land.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Sirsukh foundation and land control

Place and era: Near Taxila, now in Pakistan. Ancient era; the event year is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Marshall says Kushan rulers left Sirkap and built a new walled city at Sirsukh.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish a loss of prior land use or control. Forced moves from Sirkap also remain unproven.
What is needed next: Find whether the new city caused or secured a loss of prior land use or control.

Link to this entry

Breaks in use at Volivoli II

Place and era: Volivoli II shelter, Viti Levu, Fiji. The dates of the breaks are unknown.
What the evidence supports: Anderson and Clark infer repeated use of this shelter, with breaks when people left it.
What remains unknown: The deposits do not show why use stopped or whether people lost access.
What is needed next: Find whether an act caused people to lose use of, or access to, this shelter.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Ugaga land gift

Place and era: Ugaga is an island in Fiji. The gift dates to around 1830. The account notes later claims in 1997.
What the evidence supports: The account says Ugaga was a gift to the Vunivalu of Serua. The gift paid for the defence of Naceva against Rukua.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish which prior rights changed. Claims noted in 1997 do not settle rights today.
What is needed next: Find which prior rights to land, use or access changed through this gift.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Huron villages forced to move

Place and era: Huron villages in northeast North America. A report from 1615 describes a retreat before that year.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports that Onondaga attacks forced Huron villages to move. The former sites are not known.
What remains unknown: The move year, routes and later fate of all those who moved remain unknown.
What is needed next: Keep this retreat apart from the later Huron and Petun defeats.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A fort burned at Stadocona

Place and era: Stadocona, in the St. Lawrence area. The source dates the attack to 1533.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports that Toudamans attacked and burned a fort. People were driven from it and killed as they came out.
What remains unknown: This attack does not fix the later fate of all St. Lawrence peoples. The source uses more than one way to state the losses.
What is needed next: Keep this fort attack apart from the wider loss of St. Lawrence towns.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Loss of a Mohawk village

Place and era: A Mohawk village. Keener dates its loss to 1626 but does not name the site.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports that Mahican forces destroyed this village.
What remains unknown: The source does not fix where all its people went, or when a return was possible.
What is needed next: Trace later use of the village site. Do not assume that all Mohawk people left.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Capture of a Fire Nation village

Place and era: A walled Fire Nation village. The source dates the siege to 1642.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports that Neutral forces took the village after a siege. The account reports deaths and captives.
What remains unknown: The exact site and later fate of all captives remain unknown. Fire Nation is the source name.
What is needed next: Keep the capture apart from later attacks on Neutral villages.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A lost village of the Susquehannock people

Place and era: A Susquehannock village. The source dates its loss to July 1652 and marks the place as uncertain.
What the evidence supports: Keener lists the village as destroyed. The entry also reports captives and Iroquois deaths.
What remains unknown: The exact site, later use and fate of all residents remain unknown.
What is needed next: Keep this loss apart from the reported move into Maryland in 1675.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Loss of a Seneca village

Place and era: A Seneca village. The source dates this loss to June 1654.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports its destruction in a clash between Iroquois and Erie forces. The entry says Seneca warriors lost.
What remains unknown: The order of the group names does not fix who attacked. Later use of the site remains unknown.
What is needed next: Keep this loss apart from later attacks on Erie places.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Assault on a defended place in 1660

Place and era: A place held by a French force. Keener dates the assault to 1660 but does not name the site here.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports that attackers used shields and broke into the walled place. Its defenders were killed or captured.
What remains unknown: This does not prove that a whole town was forced out. A table entry has a possible link to this clash. That link is not settled.
What is needed next: Keep the place use and the possible table link distinct.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A lost village of the Abenaki people

Place and era: An Abenaki village in New England. The source dates its loss to late 1661.
What the evidence supports: Keener lists the village as destroyed.
What remains unknown: The exact site, later use and fate of all residents remain unknown.
What is needed next: Trace this village loss. Do not treat it as the fate of all Abenaki people.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Mohawk villages destroyed after people left

Place and era: Mohawk villages in Iroquoia. The source dates the French attack to 1666.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports that French forces destroyed villages after their people left. His table lists four villages.
What remains unknown: The attack does not explain why people first left. Whether a return was possible remains open.
What is needed next: Keep the destruction and the cause of the earlier departure separate.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A Fox village destroyed

Place and era: A Fox village in the Great Lakes area. The source dates its loss to March 1670.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports that Seneca forces destroyed the village. He also reports captives and deaths.
What remains unknown: The exact site, later use and fate of all residents remain unknown.
What is needed next: Keep this village loss apart from later settler expansion in the region.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Damage to property held by the French

Place and era: The source dates this clash to July 1688. It does not give a full account of the French property.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports extensive damage to French property in a clash.
What remains unknown: The account does not say which homes, land or other property were harmed. The link to loss of place use remains open.
What is needed next: Find what property was harmed and what use of a place was lost.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

French settlements burned near Montreal

Place and era: French settlements near Montreal. The source dates this attack to November 1689.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports that settlements were burned.
What remains unknown: The exact bounds, later use and fate of all residents remain unknown. This is not the same claim as French farm expansion.
What is needed next: Trace later use of these places. Do not assume that all residents left.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Recovery of lands in the 1680s

Place and era: Some lands once taken by Iroquois forces. Keener describes their recovery by the 1680s.
What the evidence supports: Keener reports that their opponents won back some lands.
What remains unknown: He does not name the tracts or set out a full return of former residents.
What is needed next: Find which lands and changes in control this report describes.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Barrie village formation and earlier land use

Place and era: Simcoe County, Ontario. Sutton places the village at about 1280 to 1330 CE. A test on maize gave a later date.
What the evidence supports: Sutton reports houses, middens and evidence of crops and food use. He argues that migrants founded a permanent village and kept links to groups farther south.
What remains unknown: The report does not identify the exact source community. The rights and fate of earlier users remain unclear. It does not establish a forced move. The final abandonment of the village is also unclear.
What is needed next: Trace earlier use and the later history of the same village tract. Keep the date conflict and gaps in local rights evidence visible.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

How life in the hilltop villages at Sanganakallu changed

Place and era: These hill sites lie in south India. Use declined from about 1400 to 1200 BCE. Some activity lasted later.
What the evidence supports: The study finds that hilltop villages and craft sites fell out of use. Its authors link the change to water access and social choices. People still used nearby plains and a rock shelter.
What remains unknown: The study does not settle whether people moved away or their numbers fell. It does not establish forced removal or loss of land access.
What is needed next: Trace how residence and land use changed. Abandonment alone does not show forced removal.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Water access and shared places in southern India

Place and era: The study covers the Tungabhadra and Krishna river regions in south India. It looks at changes from about 1200 BCE.
What the evidence supports: The authors discuss elite use of once-shared places and control of water access. They link these changes to new social relations.
What remains unknown: Which uses and access changed in each place, and how this affected people, remain open.
What is needed next: Study changes in shared use and water access apart from changes in hilltop life.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Later homes near Horseshoe Lake

Place and era: This study concerns Horseshoe Lake in Illinois. The lake is near Cahokia. It traces later use from about 1400 to 1700.
What the evidence supports: The study finds renewed Indigenous use by about 1500. It points to growth toward about 1650. In the authors' view, hunts are one possible use.
What remains unknown: The lake evidence does not name each group or explain each move. The roles of climate, disease and human movement remain unclear. It does not by itself show forced removal.
What is needed next: Study changes in local homes and land use. Keep earlier lake users distinct from later named groups.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A pressured move to Horseshoe Lake

Place and era: This question concerns a reported move in 1735 from a mission near Cahokia to Horseshoe Lake. Later questions concern 1752 and the first half of the 1800s.
What the evidence supports: White and colleagues report a move by Cahokia group members in 1735. They link it to tensions with French colonists. They also report forced moves to Oklahoma in the first half of the 1800s. This later account concerns former local residents and their descendants.
What remains unknown: The source leaves the pressure on each household and terms of land use unclear. A possible departure in 1752 and later land uses remain separate questions. The Oklahoma report is not yet matched to one removal episode.
What is needed next: Trace the pressured move and changes in home and land use. Keep later departure and forced removal questions open and distinct.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Failed western advance and divided return

Place and era: Westward country and the Red River, glossed as the Colorado, then a return journey. The cold Ocean People country is unknown. North America; the event date and era are unknown. Smith told the account, and Allison translated it. It was written down in 1935.
What the evidence supports: Smith describes a force that went west and destroyed groups it met. It then failed against Ocean People who defended houses in a cold country. The Wooshkam met and chose to withdraw to avoid the loss of their people. On the way back, kin followed a child toward the far bank of the river. The water closed and split them from the others. Siuuhu told them to make homes there and become kin of the Yumas. He told the others to return to won land. He also called for Wooshkam and Hohokam to work together.
What remains unknown: The cold country, full route, place where water boiled and modern identities of the Ocean People and separated kin remain unclear. The call for Yuma kinship is not a full ancestry record. The won land has no exact bounds here. Failed attack, earlier destruction and divided homes are different outcomes. Attempts to cross and pauses do not fix an event calendar.
What is needed next: Keep the destructive advance, failed attack, retreat and different homes on return distinct. Use those different outcomes to define the movement.

Link to this entry

Great-house losses, captives and survivors

Place and era: Casa Grande, Casa Blanca, Snaketown and other named homes in what is now Arizona. Some site links are uncertain. The event date and era are unknown. Smith told the account, and Allison translated it. It was written down in 1935 and edited by Bahr in 1994.
What the evidence supports: Smith gives different fates for homes and people. Casa Grande residents fled to a mountain, where they were killed; battle did not wreck the house. Casa Blanca defenders shot through holes in the walls before the house fell. Some Snaketown people fled west; others stayed before its houses were destroyed. At the house with an ocotillo base, some people were killed and the rest captured. Another house near Guadalupe was destroyed. At Pueblo Grande a leader kept his own people inside a house that seemed to be stone. The house was later destroyed. The account links this to the fall of another house at La Ciudad. The force captured people, debated their deaths, guarded them and sent captives against a sharpshooter from their own side. Smith has people secretly shelter the child of a chief after defeat. The Thin Leather version in Russell instead has a grandson found and later sold. Commentary describes Wooshkam and Hohokam survivors as mixed groups. The force expressly spared Hohokam who fled toward Big Mountain. The story also has groups lose and regain an advantage in the hunt as they travel. A woman supplies arrows to a company short of arms, with many losses.
What remains unknown: Siivan or Sivern appears in two death passages; whether these concern the same chief remains unclear. Child versus grandson and care versus capture and sale are separate versions. The captive passages need not concern one group throughout. Site and chief links are tentative, and survivor groups do not map straight onto modern peoples. Thin Leather is one narrator, even where his versions differ. These different losses, new ties and refuge do not prove full replacement or safety for all. Local battle lengths do not fix an event calendar. Hayden gives an environmental account, and Bahr links sites; these remain their own views.
What is needed next: Set bounds for the linked episodes at the named homes. Keep captive service, survivors who join other groups and spared refuge as explicit outcomes.

Link to this entry

Home choices after victory in the Dolores version

Place and era: The house of Siwani, river land and land below Baboquivari, North America. The event date and era are unknown. Dolores collected this version. Bahr presents it through the work of Saxton and Saxton, published in 1973.
What the evidence supports: In this version, I'itoi gathered people to fight Siwani; others joined on the way. He promised the first killer a choice of land for a home. Rattlesnake killed first. The attackers wrecked the house of Siwani and destroyed his people. Rattlesnake chose Rattlesnake House. Farmers from the far south took river land, while hunters took land below Baboquivari. The account calls them River People and Desert People from that time.
What remains unknown: Exact bounds, length of stay and the fate of all earlier residents are unknown. The link between Rattlesnake House and Snaketown is tentative. The source names do not give a full map of modern ancestry. This version and longer conquest accounts need not refer to separate events.
What is needed next: Keep the linked home choices and different land uses together. Keep the link to longer conquest versions explicit.

Link to this entry

Homes and departure in the Font account

Place and era: Casa Grande, in what is now Arizona, North America. The event date and era are unknown. Font wrote down this account from a governor in 1775. Bahr published this version in 1994.
What the evidence supports: The governor of Uturituc told Font that Bitter Man came with his daughter and son-in-law. Bitter Man built the great-house, got roof beams and grew crops there. Wind and Storm-cloud left his service, then came back and restored his crops. After many years, Bitter Man and his companions left. In a separate story, the governor described people who spread upstream and downstream under the Drinker. They had different languages and relations.
What remains unknown: The last departure has no stated cause or named next residents. The separate Drinker story is not its stated cause. The link to later great-house accounts, archaeological Hohokam or modern groups remains unclear. The governor stopped the stories after the Spanish listeners laughed.
What is needed next: Keep the last departure apart from the separate story of people who spread out. Trace their effects on homes and links to other great-house accounts.

Link to this entry

Homes and group separation near Komatke

Place and era: Near Komatke, glossed as Estrella Mountain in Arizona, North America. The event date and era are unknown. Smith told the account, and Allison translated it. It was written down in 1935.
What the evidence supports: Smith says the Wooshkam made homes near Komatke after the war. A leader died, and his widow led the Horned Toad People. She fell ill while some people prepared to leave and others stayed. Her grandchildren cared for her. They buried her seated near the mountains. Those who stayed later moved toward a thicket. Hendricks tells a different story about a grandmother. Two brothers ask her to agree to her death so they can keep pace with the people on the move. Tobacco later grows at her grave.
What remains unknown: The fate of earlier holders, length of stay and sole use of the new homes are unclear. The two grandmother stories do not give one combined cause of death. Smith was unsure of the state of the grave when he told the story. New homes and a split in the group do not by themselves prove a further loss of land for earlier residents.
What is needed next: Keep the new homes and split in the group linked to the campaign and later movement. Keep the death versions distinct.

Link to this entry

Jackrabbit Eater escape and new homes

Place and era: Reported Jackrabbit Eater country and refuge to the south, North America. Exact places, event date and era are unknown. Smith told this account. Allison translated it, and Hayden wrote it down in 1935.
What the evidence supports: Smith describes armed Wooshkam people on the move with families. They scout water, train and attack Sofch kah and Apaches on the way. A Jackrabbit Eater medicine woman called wind and rain, gathered her kin and escaped south. Pursuers failed to catch them. They destroyed another group they met. The last sentence describes new homes. The next phase includes enemies spared for service and the capture, abuse and forced dance of Buzzard. Hendricks has Buzzard offer a scalp dance to survive. Thin Leather describes loss of the scalp, death and return to life. Hendricks also describes a wider circuit with battles and groups who left to settle. These include Papago in Sacaton Valley.
What remains unknown: The last sentence has two possible senses. Wooshkam settled where defeated Jackrabbit Eaters lived, or Jackrabbit Eater refugees won land and made homes in Mexico. These are two ways to read one clause, not two proven outcomes. Earlier attacks lack a separate long-term effect on homes for each target. Buzzard has different fates and choices in Hendricks and Thin Leather. Their routes and episodes cannot simply be added to Smith. A year of drills and four-day spans do not fix a calendar or modern route.
What is needed next: Keep both senses of the clause about new homes open. Preserve escape, capture and survival as different outcomes within the movement.

Link to this entry

Pima and Apache war, visits and peace

Place and era: Reported Pima and Apache ties at farms, a shared place and Many-wells, glossed as Maricopa Wells, North America. The dates and eras of the episodes are unknown. This last part was written down with the Smith and Allison account in 1935.
What the evidence supports: The last part describes peaceful visits in which Apaches shared food grown on Pima farms. War resumed after a mistake over a baby who cried. Chiefs met to stop the war. The story then has a white man whose mules were stolen at Many-wells. A Pima attack on Apaches followed, and war resumed. The account ends when the Government stops the war and friendship returns.
What remains unknown: People in a conflict are not thereby proven to be displaced or new settlers. The passage does not state the effect of each episode on homes or land transfers, or its full course. No stated link ties the peace deals, mule incident or Government role to a named colonial campaign. They do not date the earlier conquest.
What is needed next: Trace the shifts in visits, shared use and peace alongside war. Leave unstated effects on homes open.

Link to this entry

War and departure in the Manje account

Place and era: Casa Grande and other great-houses, North America. People reportedly left for the north, east and south. The event date and era are unknown. Manje wrote down this account from guides in 1694.
What the evidence supports: The guides told Manje that people came from the north and built great-houses under El Siba. They described bloody war with Apache and allied fighters. People died on both sides, and the war laid waste to their homes. Those who lost heart left: some went back north, while others went east and south. Bahr presents the account through a quote published by Fewkes.
What remains unknown: The guides do not name new settlers or give the later fate of each group that left. They do not say the attackers settled in the ruined places. Exact routes, modern identities and links to later revenge and conquest accounts remain unclear. The year 1694 dates the record, not the war.
What is needed next: Define the linked war and departure account. Trace its link to the other great-house stories before it counts as a separate event.

Link to this entry

Antelope Creek: why people left

Place and era: Texas Panhandle and the Canadian River valley. The source reports departure by the late 1400s. This is not an attack date.
What the evidence supports: The National Park Service describes people who built homes, farmed and used flint quarries. It describes later settlement moves and departure from the region. It proposes drought, or pressure and attacks from groups it calls Apache ancestors, as possible causes.
What remains unknown: The source does not establish forced clearance or a group that took control. Exact move dates, destinations and later land use remain unknown.
What is needed next: Test the proposed causes of the moves. Ask whether pressure or attacks forced people to leave homes, farms or quarries.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Homes within the walls at Moundville

Place and era: Moundville is on the Black Warrior River in Alabama. The source dates this change to about 1200 to 1300.
What the evidence supports: The authors describe a new town with walls and a planned layout. Builders cleared earlier structures for it. They took Mound X out of use to clear a path for the wall. People moved inside the walls. The authors link this move to a need for defense.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish forced moves or the expulsion of prior users. The builders' authority and the residents' choices remain unclear.
What is needed next: Examine who chose the new layout and the moves. Ask how those choices changed prior use of the site.

Link to this entry

Homes and graves at Moundville

Place and era: Moundville is on the Black Warrior River in Alabama. The authors date the move to after about 1300.
What the evidence supports: The authors say most residents left the center, probably for farms in the valley. Former home areas became grave sites. Some people stayed at the center, and farms remained in use. One possible cause is a choice by leaders to empty the center. The authors also propose soil depletion and a lack of wood, or less threat of attack. These causes can act together.
What remains unknown: The authors do not choose one cause. They do not establish that leaders forced people out. Exact routes and household choices remain unknown.
What is needed next: Examine the three proposed causes together. Ask how they changed where people lived and used the site.

Link to this entry

War and the loss of valley residents

Place and era: The Black Warrior River valley is in Alabama. The authors date this loss to about 1650.
What the evidence supports: The authors say people lived in valley villages until about 1650. They link the loss of residents to war pressure across the region. They describe the valley as a buffer between proto-Creeks to the east and Choctaws to the west.
What remains unknown: The account does not show what happened to all residents. Exact moves, routes and later control remain unknown. The account does not establish a death toll or new settlers. The source does not name attackers for specific villages.
What is needed next: Examine how war pressure changed homes and use of the valley. Keep this loss separate from the earlier moves at Moundville.

Link to this entry

Land grants in the Khadar

Place and era: The Khadar east of the mounds at Hastinapura. Lal calls the grants recent but gives no year.
What the evidence supports: Lal reports that the Uttar Pradesh government reclaimed this tract for crops. It allotted land to displaced people from West Panjab and to former servicemen. The report also describes new villages and a planned town.
What remains unknown: Lal does not name the prior owners or users of this tract. He gives no account of their consent or fate. The area, date, terms and number of grants remain open. The report does not say if the two groups overlap.
What is needed next: Ask how the grants changed prior land use and the rights of those who used the tract.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Fire and later use of the town

Place and era: At Hastinapura, a fire marks the end of Period III. Its exact year is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Lal reports burned walls, floors and roof material from the trenches. He describes fire on a large scale. Later residents built homes and used the town again after a gap.
What remains unknown: The cause of the fire remains unknown. The report gives no count of deaths or people who left. It does not identify the fire with the plot to burn the Pandavas in a house. The report does not establish a human attack.
What is needed next: Ask what caused the fire and how it changed the lives and homes of the people there.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

New homes and old bricks at Hastinapura

Place and era: Hastinapura after a long gap in use. The report places new homes near the end of the eleventh century.
What the evidence supports: Lal describes new homes and the reuse of bricks from older structures. He thought Muslim conquerors brought the later craft of glazed pottery. He also notes local copies of foreign forms. The dates for the new homes and that craft differ.
What remains unknown: The report does not tie these changes to one local conquest. It does not identify a group of new arrivals or show that people lost their homes. The prior owners and their fate remain unknown.
What is needed next: Keep the new homes and the later pottery craft as distinct questions about use of the site.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Accounts of a town and a divided kingdom

Place and era: The area around Hastinapura in the accounts that Lal cites. Their event dates remain open.
What the evidence supports: Lal cites accounts in which Hastin founded the town or enlarged an older town. They describe Kuru rule over more land and branch kingdoms. They also describe Dhritarashtra as the king who split the kingdom between two related families.
What remains unknown: The report does not resolve whether Hastin founded the town or enlarged an older town. It does not give clear borders or explain the effect on prior residents. These accounts involve distinct rulers and acts. Pottery does not prove the named rulers or their control of land.
What is needed next: Ask how each account describes a change in land control or use of the town.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Exile and a request for a place to live

Place and era: The Pandavas in the accounts linked to Hastinapura. The village names vary, and the year is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Lal cites accounts of the Pandavas in exile and their request for at least five villages as a place to live. He also recounts a plot to burn them in a house, war, deaths and retaliation. These remain accounts of distinct acts in the conflict.
What remains unknown: The report does not establish that the Pandavas received the villages. It does not tell us if prior residents lost land or homes. A plot does not prove that the planned act took place. These accounts do not identify that plot with the fire in Period III.
What is needed next: Ask how exile affected their homes and whether the request led to a grant of land.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A flood account and a change of capital

Place and era: From Hastinapura to Kausambi in an account that Lal cites. The date and the route remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Lal cites an account in which the king Nichakshu moved the capital to Kausambi after a flood at Hastinapura. He also reports flood damage in the trenches and proposes a link to that account. He thought the flood caused great loss of life and property, distress and a time when people left the town. Later homes mark a return to the town.
What remains unknown: The link between the flood and the capital move remains tentative. Lal gives no count of deaths or a full account of who left. The report does not establish a human attack, a forced move or loss of rights at either place.
What is needed next: Ask who moved with the capital, while the link to the excavated flood remains open.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

The fort at Sisupalgarh changed access.

Place and era: Sisupalgarh lies near Bhuvanesvar in eastern India. Lal places its use at about 300 BCE to 350 CE. He dates the first fort walls to about 200 BCE.
What the evidence supports: Lal reports that people lived here before the fort walls. Builders made and repaired walls, gates, roads and homes. Cart tracks mark use of the gateway. A brick wall later closed a side passage. Homes and other uses continued through several phases.
What remains unknown: The builders, their aims and the reason for the closed passage remain unknown. The report does not establish that these acts forced people from their homes or land. Their effects on the rights of prior users remain open. A storm is one possible cause of damage at the gate. Continued use does not prove that every resident stayed.
What is needed next: Ask how the fort walls and the closed side passage changed access for prior residents and other users.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Moves from Jefferson County

Place and era: Jefferson County is in northern New York. The authors place the dispersal around 1500, but its exact date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: The authors propose that some groups built new communities north of the Saint Lawrence. They report that other groups joined communities in the Trent Valley or among eastern Haudenosaunee. Their pottery study traces changes in links between sites.
What remains unknown: The study does not establish what caused each move. Conflict is one proposed cause. Pottery links do not count migrants or prove that force made every resident leave.
What is needed next: Trace the reported moves and changes in village use. Keep possible conflict and incorporation distinct from the network results.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Later moves from the Saint Lawrence valley

Place and era: The account concerns communities in the Saint Lawrence valley. The authors place a move east around 1550. They report trade with Basque fishers until about 1580.
What the evidence supports: The authors report the move east and continued exchange. They propose that later groups joined Algonquian groups to the north and west. Other proposed moves led south to Abenaki groups.
What remains unknown: The authors suggest that warfare sped up the loss of residents. The study does not establish the cause of each move. It does not show that everyone died or that all use of the valley ended.
What is needed next: Ask how people moved and whether they joined other groups. Keep this question separate from the earlier Jefferson County moves and the attack at Stadocona.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Earlier moves from the Mesa Verde region

Place and era: The authors place these moves in the late 900s CE. They describe southwest Colorado and the northern edge of the Mesa Verde region. Possible destinations lie in New Mexico.
What the evidence supports: The authors report that many residents left the central Mesa Verde region. They describe earlier homes, farms and village growth. They report moves to its northern edge, and perhaps to the San Juan Basin and Chuska slopes.
What remains unknown: The source does not show why each group left or who went where. It does not establish forced moves or loss of land rights. A later chapter separates early departures, renewed use of some old villages, and the spread of household compounds. How these phases relate to the date in this study remains unresolved.
What is needed next: Examine the cited studies for evidence of departure and later homes. Keep these earlier moves separate from later moves to the northern Rio Grande.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Moves between Mesa Verde and the northern Rio Grande

Place and era: The study concerns southwest Colorado and north-central New Mexico. The authors place the later moves in the 1200s CE. Some early departures were possible before then.
What the evidence supports: The authors link departures from the Mesa Verde region with growth on the Pajarito Plateau. They argue that some early migrants returned with obsidian and knowledge of places where people already lived. They also cite warfare as the region lost residents.
What remains unknown: Objects do not identify each traveler or prove return visits. The cause of these moves and their effects on prior land use remain unknown. Counts of obsidian are not counts of migrants.
What is needed next: Examine the cited settlement evidence for the proposed return visits. Ask how objects moved, and how new and prior residents used these places.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A blind prince leaves his post and home

Place and era: The tale links Taxila with the royal capital of the father of Kunala. The event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: In this tale, a forged order leads to the loss of the sight of Kunala. He leaves his post and travels with his wife as a beggar. They reach the capital of his father, who learns what took place.
What remains unknown: The order calls for the pair to be left in the hills. The tale does not confirm that every part of that order takes place.
What is needed next: Distinguish the forged order from the acts that the tale reports. Keep the later exile of other people separate.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A king loses his country and flees

Place and era: A shrine in Udyana marks this tale. It does not locate the country that the king lost. The event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Beal translates a tale of a king in a past life. He loses rule of his country and flees an enemy. He then offers himself bound as a captive so a poor man can claim a reward.
What remains unknown: The tale does not name the lost country or give the fate of its residents. It does not confirm the later delivery of the captive.
What is needed next: Keep the lost country separate from the shrine. Trace the loss, flight and later offer as parts of one tale.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A priest turns back at a river

Place and era: The tale concerns a priest on his way back to Kasmir. The event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: In this relic tale, boatmen blame a sacred tooth for danger. Their master searches the goods of a priest. The priest gives the tooth to Nagas and turns back. He later returns and takes it to a home for priests.
What remains unknown: It is unclear whether people force him to stop or he turns back in response to sacred danger. The tale does not establish a wider expulsion.
What is needed next: Distinguish the search by people from the role of Nagas in the tale. Ask what action stops his passage.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A refugee takes rule in Udyana

Place and era: The tale concerns Udyana, in South Asia. The event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: In this tale, hosts receive a Sakya refugee and offer him a home. A host gives him a hidden sword. He kills the local king, and the officials yield rule to him.
What remains unknown: The tale gives no general expulsion of residents. It does not establish a modern identity for the hosts, whom it calls Nagas.
What is needed next: Keep the prior king and residents in view. Ask what changes for them when the refugee takes rule.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A reported move toward Nepal

Place and era: Beal discusses people called Vrijji and a move toward the mountains of Nepal. The event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Beal relays an account in which a king checks this group and drives it northeast. His account also links the group to invaders. The group and its role remain uncertain.
What remains unknown: It is unclear whether residents lose their homes or an army retreats. A shared name or place does not establish a modern people.
What is needed next: Ask who moves and what prior residence or use they lose. Keep the reported force without an assumed mass exile.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A ruler tries to keep a pilgrim

Place and era: Beal places this episode at Kao-chang on the westward route of Hiuen Tsiang. The precise event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Beal reports that the ruler tries to keep the pilgrim at Kao-chang. The pilgrim then goes on. The account also describes aid, guides and obstacles along his route.
What remains unknown: It is unclear whether the ruler imposes a stay or fails in an attempt to retain him. The account does not establish a wider removal.
What is needed next: Ask whether an actual loss of passage or choice of home occurs. Keep an attempt distinct from an imposed stay.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

A siege and loss of rule at Taxila

Place and era: Beal gives this account in a note about Taxila, in South Asia. The event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: In a note, Beal reports a revolt and a failed siege. He says the people then submit to Asoka, who takes charge. The note later links a new revolt to the post of Kunala as governor.
What remains unknown: The note does not state that all residents lose their homes. Shared place names do not make this the same event as other conquests.
What is needed next: Keep the siege and change of rule distinct from the later injury of Kunala. Compare the people, place and acts.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

An armed coup and return of priests

Place and era: The tale concerns a ruler from Himatala and people in Kasmir. The event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: In this tale, armed men enter as guests under the guise of trade. Their king kills the local ruler and exiles ministers. He calls priests back, builds a home for them and gives them the country.
What remains unknown: The tale spares ordinary residents from blame. It does not give a total of exiles or later settlers. It also says the displaced rulers later regain power.
What is needed next: Keep minister exile and priest return as distinct parts of one coup. Retain prior residents and the later change of rule.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Beal reports a conquest in Gandhara

Place and era: Beal places this conquest in Gandhara, in South Asia. The event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Beal reports that a ruler of the Ye-tha takes Gandhara. He also reports wider conquests or tribute. The local claim concerns a change of rule in a place where people already live.
What remains unknown: A possible link to the other raid remains unclear. That raid names Mahirakula. The text does not prove a separate event or a general expulsion.
What is needed next: Keep the reports distinct until the evidence links their actors and events. Do not merge them from the place name alone.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Four defenders driven from home

Place and era: The tale concerns Sakya homes and a route toward Udyana. The event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: In a tale that Beal translates, an army attacks the Sakyas. Their own clans drive four defenders from home. Each flees in a different direction. The tale follows one refugee to a new household.
What remains unknown: The attack and the expulsion have different actors. The tale does not identify all routes, later homes or the fate of each refugee.
What is needed next: Keep the exile and the later seizure of rule distinct. One refugee later takes rule in Udyana.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Monks move from Banaras to Kasmir

Place and era: Beal gives this account in a note about a monk and Kasmir. The event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: In a note, Beal says people in Banaras resent the number of monks. A monk takes a large group to Kasmir by sacred flight. The note links this move with the spread of faith.
What remains unknown: The note does not establish whether residents force the monks out or the monks leave on a mission. The cause remains unclear.
What is needed next: Ask what links the local resentment to the move. Retain the reported move without an assumed act of expulsion.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Poor people bought to serve monks

Place and era: Beal gives this account in the origin history of Kasmir. The event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: In the history that Beal translates, a monk founds homes for priests. He buys poor people from nearby countries to serve them. After his death, the text says these people take rule and face scorn from their neighbors.
What remains unknown: The text gives no count of the bought people or full terms of their service. It does not establish a modern group identity.
What is needed next: Retain the bought service, later rule and prior use of the land. Keep the lake tale separate from claims about human groups.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Priests flee a threat and receive land

Place and era: The tale links the Ganges with refuge in Kasmir. The event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: The text says Asoka plans to drown priests. Some priests flee to Kasmir by sacred powers and refuse his call to return. He then builds homes for priests and gives them the country.
What remains unknown: The threat is not a count of people who die. The text does not define the land grant or show that prior residents leave.
What is needed next: Keep the threat, refuge, refused return and grant distinct. Ask how priests and prior residents use the land.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Rulers drive priests from Kasmir

Place and era: The text places this episode after the death of Kanishka. It gives no secure event date.
What the evidence supports: In the account that Beal translates, rulers called Kritiyas take power again. The text says they banish priests and overthrow their religion. A later tale recalls priests who disperse and choose new homes.
What remains unknown: The later tale can refer to the same exiles. The text does not give their number, full routes or later fate.
What is needed next: Keep this expulsion linked to the later return of priests. Do not count the departure and return as new groups.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Strife over rule at Taxila

Place and era: The text describes Taxila, in South Asia, as it pays tribute to Kasmir. The date of the change is unknown.
What the evidence supports: The text says nobles fight for power after a royal line ends. It reports changed tribute and ruined homes for priests. It also describes farms, residents and a few priests who remain.
What remains unknown: The text does not link a specific victor or act to loss of homes or land. Ruins do not identify an attacker.
What is needed next: Ask what control or access changes as the nobles contest power. Keep the residents who remain and their land use in view.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

The king sends people into exile

Place and era: The tale concerns Taxila and a desert northeast of the Snowy Mountains. The event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: In this tale, Asoka punishes those tied to the injury of Kunala. He sends some officials into exile and kills or removes others. He sends common people who took part into a desert.
What remains unknown: The text does not say that all Taxila residents leave. The numbers, routes and later homes of the exiles are unknown.
What is needed next: Keep each affected group and form of punishment distinct. Keep this group distinct from Kunala and his wife.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

Two brothers seek refuge in China

Place and era: Beal places the refuge at Shingtu in China, during unrest at the end of Sui rule. The precise event date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Beal reports that Hiuen Tsiang and his brother seek refuge because of political unrest. They find refuge at Shingtu. Their later study and travel are different moves.
What remains unknown: The account does not identify the fate of their former home or how long they remain. It does not establish a general expulsion.
What is needed next: Keep the personal refuge distinct from later religious travel. Ask how unrest changes where the brothers can live.

Sources: Source 1

Link to this entry

McPhee: deaths and the end of communal use

Place and era: McPhee Pueblo lay in the Dolores Valley in southwest Colorado. The chapter discusses these acts during regional depopulation near the end of the 800s CE. The exact date of the deaths and destruction is unknown.
What the evidence supports: The chapter reports violent deaths and paired burials in ritual pit structures. Roofs were taken apart and collapsed over the bodies. Other ritual and community structures were burned.
What remains unknown: The authors only suggest that roofs fell as people died. They do not identify the killers or show that every resident was forced to leave. Later use of parts of the village is reported.
What is needed next: Keep the deaths and destruction of communal spaces in view. Ask how these acts changed use of those spaces and what happened to other residents.

Kellam Throgmorton, Richard Wilshusen, Grant D. Coffey (2023). Bridging the Long Tenth Century. Chapter 11, printed pages 166, 170, 171. DOI: 10.5876/9781646424597.c011.

Link to this entry

Grass Mesa: people leave before the fire

Place and era: Grass Mesa lay in the Dolores Valley in southwest Colorado. The chapter places this move in the earlier regional decline. The village fire came months or years after people left.
What the evidence supports: The account describes temporary structures during a planned departure. The authors report that the village was burned later as a ritual act. These are separate stages in one local history.
What remains unknown: A planned move does not prove that people had a free choice. The later fire does not show an attack that caused the move. The effects on continued access and use are unknown.
What is needed next: Trace the circumstances of departure and later use. Keep this account separate from the reported violence at McPhee.

Kellam Throgmorton, Richard Wilshusen, Grant D. Coffey (2023). Bridging the Long Tenth Century. Chapter 11, printed pages 166, 168. DOI: 10.5876/9781646424597.c011.

Link to this entry

People use old villages again

Place and era: The chapter describes renewed use at selected villages in the Dolores Valley and central Mesa Verde region. It places much of this work in 925-975 CE. Construction dates differ between sites.
What the evidence supports: People rebuilt and lived in parts of earlier villages. Some reused old room plans. Other communities persisted while these places were used again.
What remains unknown: The source does not identify the new residents as the same families who left. Returns and possible places where people lived remain proposals. Changes in prior use are not established.
What is needed next: Trace how the new residents related to those who left and those who stayed. Keep reuse of places separate from family identity and land control.

Kellam Throgmorton, Richard Wilshusen, Grant D. Coffey (2023). Bridging the Long Tenth Century. Chapter 11, printed pages 169, 170, 171, 172. DOI: 10.5876/9781646424597.c011.

Link to this entry

Later compounds: local moves or arrivals?

Place and era: The chapter places this pattern of small homes in 975-1030 CE in central Mesa Verde. It describes compounds on mesa tops and in some old settlements.
What the evidence supports: More people used small post-and-adobe compounds across a wider range of places. Some homes resembled those in nearby regions. The authors propose local change and immigration as alternatives.
What remains unknown: Similar buildings do not establish that people arrived from elsewhere. Fallowed land does not show the absence of prior users or rights. The effects of these settlements on earlier users remain unknown.
What is needed next: Seek evidence that distinguishes local moves from arrivals. Ask how compound residents and prior users shared or controlled these landscapes.

Kellam Throgmorton, Richard Wilshusen, Grant D. Coffey (2023). Bridging the Long Tenth Century. Chapter 11, printed pages 173, 174, 175, 176. DOI: 10.5876/9781646424597.c011.

Link to this entry

Farm lands and an invited stay at Mesa Verde

Place and era: The account concerns Tawtaykya, or Mesa Verde. The exact date and farm parcels are unknown. Later dates for ceremonial roles do not date these acts.
What the evidence supports: Kuwanwisiwma describes Katsina and Badger leaders who assigned farm lands. Residents hosted and taught new arrivals. Residents welcomed Flute to perform and asked the group to stay.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish that these allocations took land from prior users. It does not say that Flute was held by force. Shared clan names do not identify one unchanged group across places.
What is needed next: Trace how hosts and new residents shared or controlled farm use. Keep the reported land allocation separate from a forced loss of prior use.

Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Wesley Bernardini (2023). Place of the Songs. Chapter 5, printed pages 75, 76, 77, 80. DOI: 10.5876/9781646424597.c005.

Link to this entry

Rules for rites at Mesa Verde

Place and era: The account places this ban at Mesa Verde. The exact date is unknown. Later rites at Aztec have a separate context.
What the evidence supports: The account says Bow and its phratry were not allowed to perform rites at Mesa Verde. Greasewood received permission for a medicinal rite and four katsinam. Bow later held rites and built great kivas at Aztec.
What remains unknown: The ban is clear. Whether it barred use of a place or only set rules for rites remains unknown. The account does not link the ban to a later move.
What is needed next: Ask whether the ban barred use of a place or set rules for rites alone. Keep the stated ban in view.

Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Wesley Bernardini (2023). Place of the Songs. Chapter 5, printed pages 76, 77, 80, 81. DOI: 10.5876/9781646424597.c005.

Link to this entry

Entry refusal, peace and travel

Place and era: The account describes territories encountered during journeys. The exact location and date of the refusal are unknown. It links the deniers and protectors with the Warrior Twins from Aztec.
What the evidence supports: Kuwanwisiwma describes territorial warriors whom he identifies as the Warrior Twins. They first deny some clans entry. The account then reports a peace pact and protection during travel.
What remains unknown: The human identity of these figures remains unknown. The exact travellers and territorial bounds are also unclear. The account does not show eviction from earlier homes or a permanent ban on entry. It identifies no modern ethnic people.
What is needed next: Keep the refusal and later protection in one account. Ask what entry was denied and how the pact changed access.

Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Wesley Bernardini (2023). Place of the Songs. Chapter 5, printed pages 78, 81. DOI: 10.5876/9781646424597.c005.

Link to this entry

Greasewood receives aid and guidance to Mesa Verde

Place and era: The account follows Greasewood from Bears Ears to Fog Mountain and Mesa Verde. Fog Mountain is an unspecified Abajo peak. The exact calendar is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Greasewood approaches starvation and receives meat and pelts from people described as apparently Ute. At the request of Greasewood, guides lead the group to Mesa Verde. Settlement follows in the area now called Ute Mountain Tribal Park.
What remains unknown: The speaker reports a mountain visit. His visit does not make him a witness to the earlier encounter. The account does not establish a forced route, sole ownership or removal of prior residents.
What is needed next: Ask how the guided settlers related to prior residents and later communities. Keep this aid account separate from reports of conflict among other clans.

Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Wesley Bernardini (2023). Place of the Songs. Chapter 5, printed pages 76, 78, 81. DOI: 10.5876/9781646424597.c005.

Link to this entry

Conflict near Chimney Rock

Place and era: Kuwanwisiwma places this conflict near Chimney Rock. The exact date and affected tract are unknown.
What the evidence supports: The account says some clans faced conflict there. The speaker contrasts this with the Ute aid in the account of his own clan.
What remains unknown: The speaker does not identify the other side. His guesses remain unconfirmed. The passage does not state a particular move, loss of home use or change in land control.
What is needed next: Seek an account of what the conflict changed for residence, access or control. Do not supply the outcome from a different episode.

Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Wesley Bernardini (2023). Place of the Songs. Chapter 5, printed pages 78, 81. DOI: 10.5876/9781646424597.c005.

Link to this entry

Clans flee north after the loss of Palatkwapi

Place and era: The place called Palatkwapi is not fixed to one city. The note gives possible places from southern Arizona to Mesoamerica. The date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: A note that cites Yava reports the destruction of Palatkwapi after moral and social turmoil. Clans flee north. Some reach Hopi Mesas. The note also reports a break in rites and their later revival.
What remains unknown: The note does not identify a destroyer or a particular human removal process. It does not make every later Hopi arrival part of this flight. The cited Yava work was not newly read.
What is needed next: Ask how destruction, flight and later settlement connect. Keep the moral frame of the account. Do not add an attacker or erase the reported acts.

Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Wesley Bernardini (2023). Place of the Songs. Chapter 5, printed pages 80, 81, 82. DOI: 10.5876/9781646424597.c005.

Link to this entry

Mahinda's flight from the palace

Place and era: The text places Mahinda in Anuradhapura, then in Rohana. This is before the Cola attack. The exact year is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Unpaid troops blocked food from the palace. The king fled to Rohana with goods. He set up a camp and later a town.
What remains unknown: The text does not say who went with him. It does not show that local people lost homes or land. Later rights and return are unknown.
What is needed next: Keep the king's move distinct from later capture. Ask who went with him and what changed for people at each place.

Geiger, Culavamsa, Part I. English translation from German by C. Mabel Rickmers (1929; AES reprint, 1998), chapter LV, verses 55.1–12, printed pages 186–187; notes 1–3 on page 186 and note 4 on page 186.

Link to this entry

Cola rule and the capture of Mahinda

Place and era: The text names Rajarattha in Lanka. An editor dates the conquest to 1017. The text itself gives a year of the king's reign. The exact land bounds are unknown.
What the evidence supports: The text reports Cola rule over a named tract. The king was seized and sent to the Cola ruler. Temples lost wealth and buildings. His consort was seized. People kept the young prince safe.
What remains unknown: The text does not say the consort was sent abroad. It gives no count of local people made to leave. How rule changed their homes and rights is unknown.
What is needed next: Keep rule, royal capture, temple harm and harm to local people distinct. Ask how each act changed use of land or homes.

Geiger, Culavamsa, Part I. English translation from German by C. Mabel Rickmers (1929; AES reprint, 1998), chapter LV, verses 55.13–24 and 55.33–34, printed pages 187–189, including the colophon and cited notes (page 187 notes 2–3 continuing on 188, page 188 notes 1–3, page 189 note 3).

Link to this entry

The later attack in Rohana and local rewards

Place and era: This is a later attack in Rohana. The text says the young prince was twelve. The exact year is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Troops sought the prince and plundered the region. Two leaders fought them for six months. The troops who lived went back to their base. The prince gave a village reward and relief from dues.
What remains unknown: The text does not show that the prince was caught. It does not show that local people lost homes or that troops left a settled home. Prior rights in the village and later use are unknown.
What is needed next: Keep troop retreat, the village award and relief from dues distinct. Ask whose access to land changed and how.

Geiger, Culavamsa, Part I. English translation from German by C. Mabel Rickmers (1929; AES reprint, 1998), chapter LV, verses 55.23–32, printed pages 188–189; page 189 notes 1–2 and the note to 55.33 (note 3).

Link to this entry

The loss of rule in Irattapadi

Place and era: The text names Irattapadi and Musangi. It comes from the king's thirteenth year. The dates of the acts are unknown.
What the evidence supports: The text says the king's army took the land from Jayasimha. It says he fled and hid.
What remains unknown: We do not know the land's full bounds or how long rule changed. The text does not say that local people fled or lost homes.
What is needed next: Keep the ruler's flight and the loss of rule distinct. Ask how the taking changed local use of land.

E. Hultzsch, No. 31, Tirumalai Rock Inscription of Rajendra-Chola I, Epigraphia Indica IX, English translation, printed page 233, inscription lines 5–6; article printed pages 229–233.

Link to this entry

Indraratha and his family were seized

Place and era: The text places the fight at Adinagar. It names Indraratha and his family. The exact date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: The text says the army seized the king and his family. It also says their treasures were carried away.
What remains unknown: The text does not say the people were sent elsewhere. We do not know their number, stay or later fate. Their homes and rights are not described.
What is needed next: Keep the capture of people distinct from the removal of goods. Ask what happened to the people and their homes.

E. Hultzsch, No. 31, Tirumalai Rock Inscription of Rajendra-Chola I, Epigraphia Indica IX, English translation, printed page 233, inscription lines 8–9; article printed pages 229–233.

Link to this entry

The taking of Odda-vishaya

Place and era: The text names Odda-vishaya. This is a tract in the conquest list. The exact date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: The text says the army took control of the tract in close fights.
What remains unknown: The bounds and length of rule are unknown. The text does not say that local people fled. How the taking changed homes and rights is unknown.
What is needed next: Keep this tract distinct from nearby names in the list. Ask whose use of land changed and how.

E. Hultzsch, No. 31, Tirumalai Rock Inscription of Rajendra-Chola I, Epigraphia Indica IX, English translation, printed page 233, inscription lines 9; article printed pages 229–233.

Link to this entry

The army took the land of Tandabutti

Place and era: The text names Tandabutti and its ruler Dharmapala. The exact place and date are unknown.
What the evidence supports: The text says the army took the tract. It links this to the destruction of its ruler in fierce battle.
What remains unknown: The text does not show that all people were made to leave. Their rights, homes and later fate are unknown. The ruler's name alone does not prove who he was.
What is needed next: Keep the taking of land and the battle claim distinct. Ask what changed for those who used the tract.

E. Hultzsch, No. 31, Tirumalai Rock Inscription of Rajendra-Chola I, Epigraphia Indica IX, English translation, printed page 233, inscription lines 9–10; article printed pages 229–233.

Link to this entry

The army took control of the land at Takkanaladam

Place and era: The text names Takkanaladam and its ruler Ranasura. The exact place and date are unknown.
What the evidence supports: The text says the army took control of the tract. It says this followed a strong attack on the ruler.
What remains unknown: The length of rule and the land's full bounds are unknown. The text does not say that local people fled or lost homes.
What is needed next: Ask whose use of the tract changed. Keep the attack distinct from harm the text does not state.

E. Hultzsch, No. 31, Tirumalai Rock Inscription of Rajendra-Chola I, Epigraphia Indica IX, English translation, printed page 233, inscription lines 10; article printed pages 229–233.

Link to this entry

The army took land in Vangala-desa

Place and era: The text names Vangala-desa and its ruler Govindachandra. The exact bounds and date are unknown.
What the evidence supports: The land is in the list of places the army took. The text says the ruler got down from his elephant and fled.
What remains unknown: The text does not say that all people fled. Their homes, rights and later fate are unknown. The length of rule is not stated.
What is needed next: Keep the ruler's flight distinct from the land claim. Ask what changed for people who lived there.

E. Hultzsch, No. 31, Tirumalai Rock Inscription of Rajendra-Chola I, Epigraphia Indica IX, English translation, printed page 233, inscription lines 10; article printed pages 229–233.

Link to this entry

Women seized after the king fled

Place and era: The text names Mahipala in a battle claim. The exact place and date of this act are unknown.
What the evidence supports: The text says the army put the king to flight. It then seized women and elephants. The women are people, not part of the goods.
What remains unknown: The women's names, number and ties to the king are unknown. The text does not say where they went or what happened to their homes.
What is needed next: Keep the seizure of women distinct from the king's flight and goods. Ask what happened to the women after capture.

E. Hultzsch, No. 31, Tirumalai Rock Inscription of Rajendra-Chola I, Epigraphia Indica IX, English translation, printed page 233, inscription lines 10–11; article printed pages 229–233.

Link to this entry

Other lands named in the conquest list

Place and era: The text names more lands and places. These are in the same royal list. The dates of each act are unknown.
What the evidence supports: The text says the army seized these lands. It names islands, towns, regions and a river. The claim of taking is positive.
What remains unknown: The text does not show which places were taken in one act. It does not state all local people's fate or the full bounds of each tract.
What is needed next: Group the claims only where the source supports it. Keep each taking claim visible without making a new event for each name.

E. Hultzsch, No. 31, Tirumalai Rock Inscription of Rajendra-Chola I, Epigraphia Indica IX, English translation, printed page 233, inscription lines 1–2, 4–7, 9, 11–12; article printed pages 229–233.

Link to this entry

Two royal sons seized by an army

Place and era: The article reports an attack in Ceylon. It names the sons' father as Manabharana. A dated record reports the acts, not their exact dates.
What the evidence supports: The article reports that a king was killed. It says two sons of another king were seized.
What remains unknown: We do not know where the sons were kept or for how long. The text does not show what happened to their homes.
What is needed next: Keep the sons' capture distinct from harm to other people. Ask what happened to them after capture.

E. Hultzsch, XV Contributions to Singhalese Chronology, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 45(3), July 1913, pages 517–531; section II, printed pages 519–520 (South Indian Inscriptions III 59 and local III 39, as cited). DOI: 10.1017/S0035869X00045093. Public annual-volume scan.

Link to this entry

Women seized after a king's defeat

Place and era: The article reports Vira-Salamegha's defeat in Ceylon. Its cited record may list acts from more than one year.
What the evidence supports: His elder sister and daughter, or wife, were seized. His mother's nose was cut off. He was killed in battle.
What remains unknown: The text does not say where the seized women went. This may be the same event as another account. The kings' names differ, so the match is not proved.
What is needed next: Keep the named kin and their harms distinct. Do not count this and the other account as two separate events.

E. Hultzsch, XV Contributions to Singhalese Chronology, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 45(3), July 1913, pages 517–531; section III, printed pages 520–521 (South Indian Inscriptions III 52, as cited). DOI: 10.1017/S0035869X00045093. Public annual-volume scan.

Link to this entry

The forced move of a queen and her daughter

Place and era: The article names Jagatipala and his family in Ceylon. The exact date of their fate is unknown.
What the evidence supports: It reports that the king was killed. His queen and daughter were carried to Chola country.
What remains unknown: This may be the same event as the seizure of women in another account. The two kings' names differ. The women's later fate is unknown.
What is needed next: Keep the forced move as a positive claim. Keep the possible match open without joining the people or counting them twice.

E. Hultzsch, XV Contributions to Singhalese Chronology, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 45(3), July 1913, pages 517–531; section III, printed page 521 (Mahavamsa 56.13–15, as reported). DOI: 10.1017/S0035869X00045093. Public annual-volume scan.

Link to this entry

The earlier claim to rule in Ilam

Place and era: The article names Rajaraja as an earlier ruler who took Ilam. It infers a range of years from dated records.
What the evidence supports: The article reports a royal claim to conquest of the named tract. It sets this before the later king's capture.
What remains unknown: This may overlap with part of the later conquest account. It does not prove that all residents lost homes. The full bounds and length of rule are unknown.
What is needed next: Keep the earlier ruler's claim distinct from the later capture. Ask which parts of the two accounts overlap.

E. Hultzsch, XV Contributions to Singhalese Chronology, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 45(3), July 1913, pages 517–531; section IV, printed page 524 (comparison of South Indian Inscriptions III No. 52 and No. 6, as cited). DOI: 10.1017/S0035869X00045093. Public annual-volume scan.

Link to this entry

A king's flight through Ceylon to Malabar

Place and era: The article places this flight in the reign of an earlier king of Ceylon. The exact date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: It says a Chola king drove the Pandya ruler out. He sought help in Ceylon, then went to Malabar. He left royal goods behind.
What remains unknown: The article does not name a group that went with him. His prior home, length of stay and later fate are unknown.
What is needed next: Keep the first forced move distinct from the later trip. Ask what changed for the king at each place.

E. Hultzsch, XV Contributions to Singhalese Chronology, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 45(3), July 1913, pages 517–531; section V, printed pages 524–525 (Mahavamsa 53, as reported). DOI: 10.1017/S0035869X00045093. Public annual-volume scan.

Link to this entry

A king's flight to Rohana

Place and era: The article names Udaya as the king who fled to Rohana. Its date and the army's ruler are inferred, not fixed.
What the evidence supports: An army killed a commander. The king fled with royal goods. The troops could not reach him and went back without the goods.
What remains unknown: The text does not say that local people fled. It does not prove that the army took the goods or ruled the whole island.
What is needed next: Keep the king's flight and the failed mission distinct. Ask what changed for his home and rule.

E. Hultzsch, XV Contributions to Singhalese Chronology, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 45(3), July 1913, pages 517–531; section V, printed pages 524–525 (Mahavamsa 53.44 translation correction and related account, as reported). DOI: 10.1017/S0035869X00045093. Public annual-volume scan.

Link to this entry

The taking of the city of Madhura

Place and era: The article links Madhura to a war under Parantaka. It compares dates of records with a proposed date for the war.
What the evidence supports: It reports that the city and elephants were taken. It praises the slaying of a large army. A chronicle says the force sent to help went back without success.
What remains unknown: No exact death count is shown. The text does not say that all city people left or lost homes. The length of rule is unknown.
What is needed next: Keep the city claim, battle and failed return distinct. Ask what changed for people who used the city.

E. Hultzsch, XV Contributions to Singhalese Chronology, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 45(3), July 1913, pages 517–531; section VI, printed pages 525–526 (Mahavamsa 52.70–78; Udayendiram, South Indian Inscriptions II 387, verses 9–11; Annual Reports on Epigraphy, as cited). DOI: 10.1017/S0035869X00045093. Public annual-volume scan.

Link to this entry

The flight of Manavamma from Ceylon to India

Place and era: The article places the first flight from Ceylon to India. The dates depend on its sources and sums of reigns.
What the evidence supports: It says Manavamma fled from Ceylon to India. He served a ruler there. His first bid to return failed, so he stayed abroad.
What remains unknown: The text does not say all the troops or their families were refugees. It does not state the fate of his prior home or who went with him.
What is needed next: Keep the flight and first failed return distinct from the later victory. Ask how his place and role changed.

E. Hultzsch, XV Contributions to Singhalese Chronology, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 45(3), July 1913, pages 517–531; section VII, printed pages 527–529 (Mahavamsa 47 and comparative apparatus, as reported). DOI: 10.1017/S0035869X00045093. Public annual-volume scan.

Link to this entry

The later return and rise to rule

Place and era: This is Manavamma's later return to Ceylon. The exact date is not fixed.
What the evidence supports: He returned with aid, beat the ruler and took rule. The defeated ruler was killed and his head was shown.
What remains unknown: The text does not prove that all people lost homes. The land's full bounds and length of control are unknown. Troops are not all a new settler group.
What is needed next: Keep this success distinct from the first failed trip. Ask who ruled, stayed or lost access after the return.

E. Hultzsch, XV Contributions to Singhalese Chronology, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 45(3), July 1913, pages 517–531; section VII, printed pages 527–529 (Mahavamsa 47 second expedition and reign comparison, as reported). DOI: 10.1017/S0035869X00045093. Public annual-volume scan.

Link to this entry

The taking of the city of Vatapi

Place and era: The article links Vatapi to a war led by Narasiha. Exact dates and land bounds are not fixed.
What the evidence supports: It reports that Vatapi was taken. It links this claim to a ruler's defeat.
What remains unknown: The text does not say that all city people fled or lost homes. The length of control and later rights are unknown.
What is needed next: Keep this city claim distinct from the two island missions. Ask what changed for people who used the city.

E. Hultzsch, XV Contributions to Singhalese Chronology, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 45(3), July 1913, pages 517–531; section VII, printed pages 528–529 (South Indian Inscriptions II 343 and Fleet, as cited). DOI: 10.1017/S0035869X00045093. Public annual-volume scan.

Link to this entry

An army sent to South India

Place and era: The article places the mission in South India. It compares sources that give different clues to its date.
What the evidence supports: The article names Lankapura as the general who led the force. It says the force went against Kulasekhara of Madhura. It calls this an invasion of South India.
What remains unknown: This passage does not state which tract was taken or whose home changed. The fact that an army was sent does not show that it took all the land.
What is needed next: Keep the reported mission visible. Ask what land or homes changed and which acts can form one clear question.

E. Hultzsch, XV Contributions to Singhalese Chronology, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 45(3), July 1913, pages 517–531; section I, printed pages 518–519 (Mahavamsa 76.7 and Arppakkam/twelfth-year references, as reported). DOI: 10.1017/S0035869X00045093. Public annual-volume scan.

Link to this entry

Crowns taken from four named rulers

Place and era: The article compares a royal list with a chronicle. A record's date does not date each act.
What the evidence supports: A royal record lists crowns taken from four kings. The article also reports deaths. These do not prove a new taking of land for each name.
What remains unknown: Some names may match kings in other accounts. The article gives up one proposed match. The land and home effects are not clear.
What is needed next: Keep the crowns and deaths as stated claims. Link the women already seized in the other questions. Do not add a new event for each crown.

E. Hultzsch, XV Contributions to Singhalese Chronology, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 45(3), July 1913, pages 517–531; sections II–III, printed pages 520–521 (the 1046 record, South Indian Inscriptions III 52, as reported). DOI: 10.1017/S0035869X00045093. Public annual-volume scan.

Link to this entry

A later army sent to Ceylon

Place and era: The article places this mission after a king's death. It gives two dates for that death, not for the mission.
What the evidence supports: It reports that a general led an army to Ceylon. It does not state what land or homes were taken.
What remains unknown: The date and result of the mission are not fixed. A later murder report does not prove another taking of land.
What is needed next: Keep the king's death and the later mission distinct. Ask what the force did and whose land or homes changed.

E. Hultzsch, XV Contributions to Singhalese Chronology, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 45(3), July 1913, pages 517–531; section IX, printed page 531 (Mahavamsa 90.47, as reported). DOI: 10.1017/S0035869X00045093. Public annual-volume scan.

Link to this entry

An attack and expulsion in the Great Prairie account

Place and era: Great Prairie, by the Arkansas River. The account record dates to 1827. The attack date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Hoffman quotes a Quapaw account of an attack on a camp. It says the people resisted, then lost. The attackers drove them away and claimed control of the area.
What remains unknown: The source links the name Intouka to Illinois. That link, the date and the extent of control remain unclear.
What is needed next: Study the people at the camp and the land they used. Keep this attack distinct from the earlier Tonnika encounter.

Link to this entry

Survivors and new homes by the Arkansas River

Place and era: By the Arkansas River. Hoffman places the likely moves in the late 1500s or early 1600s. The exact dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Hoffman argues that survivors from the Old Town, Kent and Walls phases moved to the Arkansas River. He uses pottery evidence for this view.
What remains unknown: The cause and terms of these moves remain unclear. Pottery does not prove that people left under force or took land from others.
What is needed next: Study the groups and their new homes. Keep other proposed routes distinct.

Link to this entry

The loss of homes in northeast Arkansas

Place and era: Northeast Arkansas. Hoffman compares regional reports from the 1540s and 1673. The gap in permanent homes does not date one forced move. It does not prove that all land use stopped.
What the evidence supports: Hoffman contrasts towns in use in the 1540s with a later lack of permanent homes. He reviews disease, drought and conflict as possible causes.
What remains unknown: The chapter does not establish one cause or one forced move. The fates of many residents remain unknown.
What is needed next: Keep local departures and new homes distinct. Study how each proposed cause relates to the loss of permanent homes.

Link to this entry

Tunica and Tonnika accounts of flight

Place and era: Near the lower Mississippi River. Hoffman argues that the Tunica left before 1699. The exact date and earlier home remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Hoffman recounts a Tunica tradition of conflict and a move downstream. A Quapaw account claims an attack that drove Tonnika away. The 1989 report proposes a cause of departure from southeast Arkansas. In this view, Quapaw pressure drove people out. Disease is another proposed cause. The report also links local phases to possible Tunican or Koroa groups.
What remains unknown: It is unclear if both accounts describe the same departure. The exact date and place remain unknown. This view concerns southeast Arkansas. Its link to the Tunica and Tonnika accounts is unclear. They can describe the same departure, part of it, or related regional changes. Phase labels do not prove one people.
What is needed next: Study the earlier home area and the new settlement. Keep each account and its source clear. Compare the two source accounts, their places and their proposed groups. Keep the relation open.

Michael P. Hoffman (1993), The Depopulation and Abandonment of Northeastern Arkansas in the Protohistoric Period. Chapter 15 in James B. Stoltman (ed.), Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams. Archaeological Report 25, printed pages 261–275; cited printed pages 267–269, 272–273. One consulted chapter; underlying accounts and reports not independently consulted.
Marvin D. Jeter and G. Ishmael Williams, Jr., Chapter 7, “Late Prehistoric Cultures, A.D. 1000–1500”, in Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Trans-Mississippi South in Arkansas and Louisiana (Arkansas Archeological Survey, RS37, 1989), printed pp. 183, 184, 188 (physical PDF pp. 195, 196, 200). One accepted report component; cited originals and analyst readings do not add independent historical witnesses.

Link to this entry

Nulliak stayed in use under pressure

Place and era: Nulliak is on the north coast of Labrador. Spiess uses the term Late Maritime Archaic for the site. His text gives no exact date for the pressure.
What the evidence supports: Spiess says people kept Nulliak in use under pressure. He says the pressure came from immigrant groups. He calls them Paleoeskimo.
What remains unknown: The form of pressure is unclear. The source does not show that people lost homes or land.
What is needed next: Read the cited reports on Nulliak. Study the pressure and whether people lost access to land.

Arthur E. Spiess (1993), Caribou, Walrus and Seals: Maritime Archaic Subsistence in Labrador and Newfoundland. Chapter 7 in James B. Stoltman (ed.), Archaeology of Eastern North America: Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams. Archaeological Report No. 25, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, printed pages 73–100; claim at printed page 74, physical PDF page 87, right-column Nulliak paragraph. This note reports Spiess’s account; his citations are not separate confirmation.

Link to this entry

Homes lost at Cambabe II

Place and era: Cambabe II was a camp in Bengo, Angola. Police burned homes there in September and October 2002. The later eviction date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Human Rights Watch reports that police burned homes and crops. Most residents fled. People who stayed in a compound were later forced out.
What remains unknown: The full number of people forced out is unknown. The later fate of the land is unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the first flight and the later eviction as one sequence. Check where residents went and what happened to their homes.

Human Rights Watch; Nadejda Marques. Struggling Through Peace: Return and Resettlement in Angola. August 2003, Vol.15, No.16(A). Printed pages: 9, 10; PDF pages: 13, 14; notes: 28-31. One consulted Human Rights Watch report; testimony, staff interviews and cited correspondence as specified in the shared source genealogy.

Link to this entry

Some residents left Bengo II under pressure

Place and era: Bengo II was a camp near Negage in Uige, Angola. The report covers pressure in 2002 and 2003.
What the evidence supports: Human Rights Watch reports that some residents left under pressure. Others stayed with aid worker support. Some kept homes, crops and school ties.
What remains unknown: The number who left is unclear. The source does not show that all residents lost their homes.
What is needed next: Trace those who left and those who stayed. Separate the state orders from the food aid cutoff.

Human Rights Watch; Nadejda Marques. Struggling Through Peace: Return and Resettlement in Angola. August 2003, Vol.15, No.16(A). Printed pages: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14; PDF pages: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; notes: 32-49. One consulted Human Rights Watch report; testimony, staff interviews and cited correspondence as specified in the shared source genealogy.

Link to this entry

Families forced to move from home

Place and era: The report names Calala and Luvuei in Angola. Luvuei is in Moxico. The date of the transfer is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Human Rights Watch reports a forced move. About 18 families of former fighters went from Calala to Luvuei.
What remains unknown: The report does not name who moved the families. Their exact home sites, later rights and links to other groups are unknown.
What is needed next: Trace this forced transfer and its effects on homes and land. Keep families distinct from people in any count.

Human Rights Watch; Nadejda Marques. Struggling Through Peace: Return and Resettlement in Angola. August 2003, Vol.15, No.16(A). Printed pages: 22, 23; PDF pages: 26, 27; notes: 98. One consulted Human Rights Watch report; testimony, staff interviews and cited correspondence as specified in the shared source genealogy.

Link to this entry

A woman taken from shelter at Cazombo

Place and era: The assault took place at Cazombo in Angola. The report gives the date as January 14, 2003.
What the evidence supports: Human Rights Watch reports that soldiers took a woman from a school used as shelter to the bushes. They raped her and beat men. She later received medical care.
What remains unknown: The exact place in the bushes is unknown. The effect on use of the shelter remains an open question.
What is needed next: Study how the assault affected use of the shelter. Compare it with the Catofe market question under the same rule.

Human Rights Watch; Nadejda Marques. Struggling Through Peace: Return and Resettlement in Angola. August 2003, Vol.15, No.16(A). Printed pages: 19, 20, 21; PDF pages: 23, 24, 25; notes: 78-83, 90-91. One consulted Human Rights Watch report; testimony, staff interviews and cited correspondence as specified in the shared source genealogy.

Link to this entry

Aid pressure at Bengo and Feira

Place and era: The report places these camps near Negage in Uige, Angola. It describes pressure in 2002 and 2003.
What the evidence supports: Human Rights Watch reports orders to leave and threats to cut aid. Food aid also stopped at Bengo II. Some residents lacked transport.
What remains unknown: It is unclear who left because of each form of pressure. Camp names and household overlap need checks.
What is needed next: Link this wider pressure question to the Bengo II departures. Keep food aid decisions separate from state orders.

Human Rights Watch; Nadejda Marques. Struggling Through Peace: Return and Resettlement in Angola. August 2003, Vol.15, No.16(A). Printed pages: 10, 11; PDF pages: 14, 15; notes: 32-37. One consulted Human Rights Watch report; testimony, staff interviews and cited correspondence as specified in the shared source genealogy.

Link to this entry

A blocked family journey from Negage to Luanda

Place and era: The report describes a woman near Negage in Uige, Angola. She sought to join family in Luanda in 2003.
What the evidence supports: Human Rights Watch reports that barriers kept the woman from Luanda. Mines blocked land routes, and the state controlled air access.
What remains unknown: The precise role of each barrier is unclear. The source does not establish a permanent ban.
What is needed next: Trace the barriers and their effect on her choice of home. Check how the state controlled access to Luanda.

Human Rights Watch; Nadejda Marques. Struggling Through Peace: Return and Resettlement in Angola. August 2003, Vol.15, No.16(A). Printed pages: 11, 12; PDF pages: 15, 16; notes: 38-40. One consulted Human Rights Watch report; testimony, staff interviews and cited correspondence as specified in the shared source genealogy.

Link to this entry

The market burned at Catofe

Place and era: Catofe was a camp in Kuanza Sul, Angola. The report gives no exact date for the act.
What the evidence supports: Human Rights Watch reports that the Angolan army burned the camp market at Catofe.
What remains unknown: The full extent of the damage is unknown. How long the loss of use lasted is unknown. Later access is unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the damage and later use of the market. Check how the loss affected its users.

Link to this entry

A threat to burn homes at Amboiva

Place and era: Amboiva was a camp in Angola. The report gives no exact date for the threat.
What the evidence supports: Human Rights Watch reports that troops threatened to burn homes at Amboiva.
What remains unknown: The source does not establish that troops burned the homes or that residents left. A link to the Calala transfer is unknown.
What is needed next: Trace what happened after the threat. Check for any loss of homes or use of land.

Link to this entry

Reports of violence and questions about homes

Place and era: These are separate reports from the border and from Bengo II in Angola. They concern different acts and dates.
What the evidence supports: Human Rights Watch reports a fatal attack at the border and deaths in a river. It also reports rape and abduction at Bengo II. These are separate reports, not one event.
What remains unknown: The effect of each incident on homes or land use is unclear. The reports do not establish forced departure in every case.
What is needed next: Trace each incident and its effect on residence separately. Keep the victims and dates distinct.

Human Rights Watch; Nadejda Marques. Struggling Through Peace: Return and Resettlement in Angola. August 2003, Vol.15, No.16(A). Printed pages: 13, 14, 18; PDF pages: 17, 18, 22; notes: 46-49, 71-73. One consulted Human Rights Watch report; testimony, staff interviews and cited correspondence as specified in the shared source genealogy.

Link to this entry

Pressure and village moves near Lake Ontario

Place and era: Western north shore of Lake Ontario, in the late 1500s and early 1600s. These are broad study dates, not the dates of one attack.
What the evidence supports: Birch and Hart link the loss of village residence in western valleys to pressure from a conflict frontier. Their study uses site dates, settlement patterns and pottery. They note that some village moves had other causes.
What remains unknown: The study does not trace each family or each move. Exact dates, routes and later access to the old village lands are unclear. Refuge at sites farther east is a linked proposal.
What is needed next: Assess this bounded withdrawal for the atlas. Keep its limits and its possible links to other village moves clear.

Jennifer Birch, John P. Hart (2021). Conflict, Population Movement, and Microscale Social Networks in Northern Iroquoian Archaeology. American Antiquity 86(2):350–367. DOI: 10.1017/aaq.2021.5.

Link to this entry

Health and burial treatment at Harappa

Place and era: Harappa, in present-day Pakistan; burial groups from about 2550 to 1700 BCE. These dates describe the study, not a removal event.
What the evidence supports: A study reports disease and unequal burial treatment at Harappa. It cites earlier injury findings and discusses population decline. The original dig report describes mixed human and animal remains with burial pottery in Area G.
What remains unknown: The dig report names several possible causes: massacre, raid, accident or epidemic. These sources do not establish that a group lost its homes or use of land. The burial samples do not show rates of disease or violence among people alive at the time.
What is needed next: Compare the Area G burial context with evidence for where people lived. Check whether a specific process changed access to homes or land for a group.

Gwen Robbins Schug and colleagues, Infection, Disease, and Biosocial Processes at the End of the Indus Civilization, PLOS ONE 8(12), e84814 (2013), pp.4–11 and16–17; Tables1–2. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0084814.
Madho Sarup Vats, Excavations at Harappa (1940), vol. I, Chapter V, pp. 192–202; especially pp. 197–202. PDF pages 219–229.
Vats, Excavations at Harappa (1940), vol. II, plates XXXIX–XLII and LVIII(a). PDF pages 89, 90, 92, 94 and 124.

Link to this entry

Fire and departure at a Mitchell house

Place and era: Mitchell, in present-day South Dakota, United States. The ancient date is not known.
What the evidence supports: Meleen describes burned posts, pots and other finds at House 1. He interprets them as signs of a partial fire and a hurried departure. His report also describes village defenses.
What remains unknown: The cause and date are not known. This report does not show that people were forced out or that the whole village was left. The link between the village and nearby burial mounds is unclear.
What is needed next: Check excavation records and later studies of the site. Look for evidence of what caused the departure and what happened to the use of this house.

Elmer E. Meleen, A Preliminary Report of the Mitchell Indian Village and Burial Mounds on Firesteel Creek, Mitchell, Davison County, South Dakota (Museum of University of South Dakota, December1938), PartI, pp.4,9,14.

Link to this entry

The earlier Yueh-chih flight

Place and era: An ancient movement before Kushan rule. The homeland and date are unknown. The account names northern Bactria as a later home.
What the evidence supports: Puri says Hsiung-nu pressure drove the Great Yueh-chih from their homeland. They later settled in northern Bactria.
What remains unknown: The route and the size of the group are unknown. The account does not link every later leg to the same people.
What is needed next: Assess the reported departure and later settlement as one bounded question. Keep later Kushan acts separate.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 239, 240.

Link to this entry

Kujula defeats four rival rulers

Place and era: The early Kushan realm. The four domains and the exact date remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Puri says Kujula defeated four other yabghu and made himself king. Their separate rule ended in this account.
What remains unknown: The account does not name the four rulers or fix their domain bounds. The fate of residents is unknown.
What is needed next: Assess one collective loss of rule. Do not turn the four rulers into four separate capture events.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 240.

Link to this entry

Kujula takes Kabul

Place and era: Kao-fu, which Puri calls Kabul. The date and exact tract bounds are unknown.
What the evidence supports: Puri identifies Kao-fu as Kabul and says Kujula took it. The account describes a loss of Indo-Parthian control.
What remains unknown: Kapisa is related context, but its exact link to Kabul is not settled. Household removal and the duration of rule remain unknown.
What is needed next: Assess the Kabul control claim. Keep the place-name link open and do not add a separate Kapisa capture.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 240, 247.

Link to this entry

Kujula takes P'u-ta

Place and era: P'u-ta, which Puri calls Pushkalavati. This ancient account gives no fixed date or city boundary.
What the evidence supports: Puri says Kujula overthrew prior rule and annexed P'u-ta. The city came under his control in this account.
What remains unknown: The source does not state what happened to residents. The duration of control and exact date remain unknown.
What is needed next: Assess this loss of city control. Keep it separate from the older account of Alexander at the same city.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 240, 241.

Link to this entry

Kujula takes Chi-pin

Place and era: Chi-pin, which Puri calls Kashmir. The date and exact extent of rule remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Puri says Kujula overthrew prior rule and annexed Chi-pin. The account states a change of control.
What remains unknown: The fate of residents and priests is unknown. The exact place-name match and duration of rule remain open.
What is needed next: Assess the reported control loss. Keep later Kashmir priest and court stories separate.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 240, 241.

Link to this entry

Vima and T'ien-chu

Place and era: T'ien-chu is the broad source name for India. Its exact extent and the conquest date are unknown.
What the evidence supports: Puri says Vima conquered T'ien-chu and put a general in control.
What remains unknown: Its link to the Indus conquest is unresolved. The account does not map a conquest of the whole subcontinent.
What is needed next: Assess the tract and its link to the Indus claim. Resolve whether both describe the same conquest.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 240.

Link to this entry

Vima takes the Indus valley

Place and era: The Indus valley to Sind. This ancient account gives no exact date or boundary.
What the evidence supports: Puri says Vima seized this tract as Indo-Parthian power weakened. The claim describes a change of rule.
What remains unknown: The link to T'ien-chu is unresolved. The account does not state that households left their homes.
What is needed next: Assess the Indus control claim and its overlap with T'ien-chu. Keep Vima separate from Kujula.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 247.

Link to this entry

Kanishka and the Parthian war

Place and era: Former Indo-Parthian lands in Iran. The war site and date remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Puri cites a Buddhist war story. Ghirshman links it to a possible Parthian bid to regain lost lands.
What remains unknown: The account does not fix the land won or lost. The proposed cause of war remains uncertain.
What is needed next: Assess what the reported war changed in land control or use. Keep its proposed cause separate from its outcome.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 247.

Link to this entry

Begram: destruction and abandonment questions

Place and era: The New Royal City at Begram, Afghanistan. The dates and links between its occupation layers remain disputed.
What the evidence supports: Puri reports destruction at Begram. Later studies question the dates and links between layers; Morris argues for continued occupation, then abandonment.
What remains unknown: The cause of abandonment and its effect on residents are not established. The studies may refer to different layers.
What is needed next: Compare the excavation records to identify which layers each account describes and what ended their use.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 243.
Osmund Bopearachchi, Les données numismatiques et la datation du bazar de Begram, Topoi 11/1 (2001; published 2003), pp. 411–435.
Lauren Morris, Revised dates for the deposition of the Begram hoard and occupation at the New Royal City, Parthica 19 (2017), pp. 75–104; consulted manuscript, physical pp. 1–30, with five figures omitted.

Link to this entry

Ardashir takes three eastern tracts

Place and era: Margiana, Carmania and Sistan. Each tract has its own control claim. Exact dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Puri says Ardashir conquered Margiana. He also names conquests of Carmania and Sistan.
What remains unknown: The order of events and the fate of residents are unknown.
What is needed next: Assess each tract claim within this linked question. Keep later submission and Shapur phases separate.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 248.

Link to this entry

Kushans regain lost territory

Place and era: Former Kushan lands before Shapur II came of age. Exact tracts and dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Puri says the Kushans regained lost lands amid disorder in Iran.
What remains unknown: The account does not name each recovered tract or the power that lost it. Whether any household returned is unknown.
What is needed next: Identify the recovered tract and earlier holder of control. Keep this phase separate from the earlier conquests.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 248.

Link to this entry

Shapur II defeats the Kushans

Place and era: The Kushan conflict under Shapur II. The battle site and exact date are unknown.
What the evidence supports: Puri says Shapur II renewed war and decisively defeated the Kushans.
What remains unknown: The effects on land or homes are unknown. Defeat does not by itself show that a whole people left.
What is needed next: Assess any stated change in control or use after this defeat. Keep this war separate from the wars of Shapur I.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 248.

Link to this entry

Kanishka and eastern rule

Place and era: Mathura, Kausambi and Sarnath have inscriptions. Coins occur as far as Patna and Gaya. These are ancient sites of rule or finds.
What the evidence supports: Puri links inscriptions, coin finds and written accounts to wider Kushan rule.
What remains unknown: The finds do not fix one conquest or a prior holder of control. The extent and dates remain open.
What is needed next: Separate evidence of rule from evidence of a specific conquest. Assess its link to the Pataliputra story.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 249, 252.

Link to this entry

Ashvaghosha in a war payment

Place and era: Pataliputra in a religious story. The date and any later home for Ashvaghosha remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Puri retells the defeat of its king. Kanishka demanded payment. He accepted Ashvaghosha, the alms bowl of the Buddha and a cock.
What remains unknown: Whether Ashvaghosha consented or moved is unknown. The story does not state that Kanishka annexed the city.
What is needed next: Assess whether the payment changed control of his life or his residence. Keep the person distinct from the two objects.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 249.

Link to this entry

Lost eastern lands after Huvishka

Place and era: Some distant eastern Kushan lands after Huvishka. The lost tracts and dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Puri says the Kushans lost some eastern lands. They kept Mathura under their rule.
What remains unknown: The account does not name the new rulers of each lost tract. It does not give one date for all losses.
What is needed next: Assess each lost tract and its change of rule. Keep Mathura apart from the lost lands.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 249.

Link to this entry

Further losses after Vasudeva

Place and era: Kushan lands after Vasudeva. Exact tracts and dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Puri says new dynasties and republican states took more Kushan territory after a period of stable rule.
What remains unknown: The account does not name all new rulers or fix each transfer. It does not give one date for all losses.
What is needed next: Assess the tract and prior rule in each claimed loss. Keep the Huvishka and Vasudeva phases separate.

B. N. Puri, The Kushans, History of Civilizations of Central Asia, volume II, chapter 11 (first publication 1994; held impression 1996), pp. 250.

Link to this entry

A proposed move from the Tensas Basin to Jordan

Place and era: Kidder places this movement in northeast Louisiana, roughly 1550 to 1680. These are broad source dates.
What the evidence supports: Kidder proposes that people moved west from the Tensas Basin and gathered at Jordan. He suggests disease and political change as possible causes. The 1989 report adds a possible origin at Wilmot. It proposes that some people from there found refuge at Jordan. It also raises a possible Koroa link.
What remains unknown: Who moved, how pressure shaped the move, and what happened at the places they left are unresolved. The chapter does not establish an expulsion. The proposed Wilmot and Transylvania origins do not prove one group or one move. A Koroa link remains uncertain.
What is needed next: Examine the proposed move and changes in residence as separate questions. Keep the possible causes and group identities open. Keep each proposed origin distinct. Study the terms of refuge and any change in local residence.

Kidder 1993, chapter 14, printed p. 256
Marvin D. Jeter and G. Ishmael Williams, Jr., Chapter 7, “Late Prehistoric Cultures, A.D. 1000–1500”, in Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Trans-Mississippi South in Arkansas and Louisiana (Arkansas Archeological Survey, RS37, 1989), printed pp. 184, 185 (physical PDF pp. 196, 197). One accepted report component; cited originals and analyst readings do not add independent historical witnesses.

Link to this entry

People gather near the lower Ouachita river junctions

Place and era: Kidder places this change near the lower Ouachita river junctions between 1682 and about 1700. It follows the earlier Tensas-to-Jordan movement.
What the evidence supports: He proposes that villages joined near the Ouachita and Bayou Bartholomew. He links this change to the collapse at Jordan and new trade conditions. He suggests that people from several groups joined. The 1989 report proposes a later move from Jordan. It points toward Bayou Bartholomew and the Ouachita. The people and route remain uncertain.
What remains unknown: The groups, household choices and changes in land use are not fully known. When villages join, this does not prove that earlier residents lost their homes. The source does not establish one route or the same people at each place. Later homes near the river junctions do not establish a second departure.
What is needed next: Keep the decline at Jordan and the new settlements distinct. Clarify whose residence changed. Do not treat pottery styles as peoples. Keep the departure from Jordan and later homes near the river junctions distinct. Do not assume one group took every step.

Kidder 1993, chapter 14, printed pp. 255–257
Marvin D. Jeter and G. Ishmael Williams, Jr., Chapter 7, “Late Prehistoric Cultures, A.D. 1000–1500”, in Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Trans-Mississippi South in Arkansas and Louisiana (Arkansas Archeological Survey, RS37, 1989), printed pp. 184, 185 (physical PDF pp. 196, 197). One accepted report component; cited originals and analyst readings do not add independent historical witnesses.

Link to this entry

Reported armed attacks on northeast Louisiana communities

Place and era: Kidder discusses northeast Louisiana in the early 1700s. He does not give one exact attack date or a complete list of affected places.
What the evidence supports: He reports that armed incursions were blamed for severe losses among Native communities. He names Chickasaw and Choctaw in this account. He also discusses a wider loss of local residents.
What remains unknown: The specific attacks, communities, numbers and resident outcomes remain unclear. The report does not show that all earlier residents were killed or expelled.
What is needed next: Clarify the reported attacks and their effects on residence. Keep death, flight and fusion with other groups distinct.

Kidder 1993, chapter 14, printed p. 257

Link to this entry

French policy and encouraged Native settlement

Place and era: Kidder describes settlement on the Yazoo River and near Natchitoches in the early 1700s. These are separate areas for settlement, not one mapped route.
What the evidence supports: He reports that French policy encouraged Native groups to settle in these areas. The aim included defense against rival powers and their Native allies. French resources also shifted toward the Red River.
What remains unknown: The groups, origins, terms and household choices are unresolved. Encouragement does not by itself establish forced transport or loss of home rights.
What is needed next: Clarify the terms of settlement and any change in residence or land control. Keep the two areas and their groups separate.

Kidder 1993, chapter 14, printed p. 257

Link to this entry

A decline in Lower Ohio Valley settlement

Place and era: The Lower Ohio Valley and the Wabash river mouth. The later study covers a broad period from about 1400 to 1700. These are context dates, not the date of one move.
What the evidence supports: Muller describes a large decline in settlement. He rejects a sudden departure of every resident. Pollack and Munson describe a move downstream from Angel toward the Wabash. They report that settlement density and outside exchange continued.
What remains unknown: The causes, people who left, routes and exact sequence remain unclear. The accounts cover different places and scales. Neither establishes forced removal. Continued settlement density does not prove that the total number of people stayed the same.
What is needed next: Trace where people stayed or moved after Angel was left. Keep that local history separate from wider decline. Test the proposed causes. Do not treat decline as proof of expulsion.

Muller 1993, chapter 10, printed p. 132 (context pp. 131–132)
David Pollack and Cheryl Ann Munson, Caborn-Welborn Ceramics: Intersite Comparisons and Extraregional Interaction, Current Archaeological Research in Kentucky, Volume Five (1998), printed pp. 163, 165.

Link to this entry

Possible upland moves away from demands by chiefs

Place and era: The question comes from a Lower Ohio Valley study. The places and dates of these possible upland moves remain unclear.
What the evidence supports: Muller suggests that some upland sites reflect moves away from harsh demands by chiefs. This is a proposed cause.
What remains unknown: The sites and people remain unclear. Their prior homes, new homes and changes in residence are not known. This view does not explain all regional decline.
What is needed next: Find out which sites and moves fit this view. Keep it separate from the wider decline in settlement.

Muller 1993, chapter 10, printed p. 140 (context pp. 138–140)

Link to this entry

People from Balkh settle in an Indian city

Place and era: People from Balkh in a city in India. The city and date remain unclear.
What the evidence supports: Litvinsky cites a literary work. It reports that people from Balkh settled in a city.
What remains unknown: The cause, number of people and changes in land use remain unclear. The report does not establish forced removal.
What is needed next: Clarify where people settled and what changed in residence or land use. Keep the cause open.

Litvinsky 1994, held 1996 impression, chapter 13, printed p. 296, note 33 (context pp. 295–296)

Link to this entry

An artist goes to work at a monastery

Place and era: An artist goes from Pushkalavati to Asmaka. Asmaka is probably in Central Asia. The place and date are not certain.
What the evidence supports: Litvinsky reports a story about an artist from Pushkalavati who went to Asmaka. He went there to work at a monastery.
What remains unknown: The author of the Sutralamkara is uncertain. The exact date, location and changes in residence remain unclear. The story does not establish forced labor.
What is needed next: Clarify what the journey changed in residence or land use. Do not assume that the work was forced.

Litvinsky 1994, held 1996 impression, chapter 13, printed p. 300, Sutralamkara IV.21 story

Link to this entry

An attack and a question about homes

Place and era: The McCutchan-McLaughlin site. The date of the reported attack is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Schambach reports violent deaths at the site. Leith reports possible homes near the mound that held graves. Excavation exposed part of one possible home, with a floor and possible posts. His study also uses earlier work on the deaths and proposes a boundary between groups.
What remains unknown: The accounts do not establish who used the tested home when the attack took place. They do not show whether the attack caused loss of homes or land. The attack date remains unknown. He did not excavate the other possible homes at this site.
What is needed next: Check whether the people killed lived at the site. Ask what the attack changed in the use of homes or land.

Schambach 1993, chapter 13, printed pp. 191–192 (PDF physical pp. 204–205)
Luther J. Leith, A Re-Conceptualization of the Fourche Maline Culture: The Woodland Period as a Transition in Eastern Oklahoma (PhD dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2011), printed pp. 37–39 and 140–177. Selected site context and settlement/territoriality chapters; figures, other chapters and cited originals not verified.

Link to this entry

A proposed trader settlement at Sanders

Place and era: Sanders in the Red River Valley. The date and the homes of the proposed traders remain unclear.
What the evidence supports: Schambach proposes that traders from the Arkansas Valley settled at Sanders. He compares objects and human remains. Other explanations exist.
What remains unknown: The report does not establish a forced move or a loss of local land. A proposed link to child adoption, slavery and disease remains a guess.
What is needed next: Clarify who settled at Sanders and on what terms. Ask what changed for those who arrived and for people already there.

Schambach 1993, chapter 13, printed pp. 203–207 (PDF physical pp. 216–220)

Link to this entry

A proposed trader settlement at Nagle

Place and era: Nagle is near Oklahoma City. The date and the homes of any proposed traders remain unclear.
What the evidence supports: Schambach proposes that traders settled at Nagle. He compares burial objects and human remains with finds from other sites.
What remains unknown: These comparisons do not establish a forced move or a loss of local land. Modern damage to graves does not describe an ancient removal.
What is needed next: Clarify who used Nagle and whether traders settled there. Ask what changed in residence, land use or access.

Schambach 1993, chapter 13, printed pp. 207–208 (PDF physical pp. 220–221)

Link to this entry

A report of war between Tanico and Tula

Place and era: Tanico and Tula in a report from the sixteenth century. The exact places, groups and dates remain unclear.
What the evidence supports: Schambach relays a report through Quinn. In this account, a leader described war and said the groups did not understand each other.
What remains unknown: The report does not establish a loss of homes or land. The identity of Tula and the extent of the war remain uncertain.
What is needed next: Clarify which groups the account names and how they used the area. Ask whether the reported war changed residence or access to land.

Schambach 1993, chapter 13, printed pp. 222–223 (PDF physical pp. 235–236)

Link to this entry

Did people linked to Spiro move to Tanico?

Place and era: Spiro and proposed later settlements along the Arkansas River. The places, groups and dates in this proposed sequence remain unclear.
What the evidence supports: Schambach asks whether people linked to Spiro moved to Tanico. He also asks whether Wichita later entered a western area.
What remains unknown: These ideas do not establish a forced move, a cause of decline or a transfer of land. They do not prove that the named groups were the same people.
What is needed next: Clarify which settlements continued and which people moved, if any. Treat each proposed stage as a separate question about residence and land use.

Schambach 1993, chapter 13, printed pp. 221–224 (PDF physical pp. 234–237)

Link to this entry

Water duties and pressure at Vargsar

Place and era: Vargsar and Samarkand. The chapter places the duties in an early medieval context. The dates of the attacks remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: The chapter reports dam guard duties and land-tax relief at Vargsar. It also says invaders tried to destroy the dam and force Samarkand to yield.
What remains unknown: The account does not fix each attack, its date or its result. Changes to homes, land use and control remain unclear.
What is needed next: Keep dam duties separate from attacks. Clarify who acted, who used the land and what changed.

Mukhamedjanov 1994, chapter 12, printed p. 263 (PDF physical p. 264)

Link to this entry

A duty to guard the Samarkand water supply

Place and era: Samarkand. The exact date of the reported duty is unknown.
What the evidence supports: The chapter says magi had to maintain and guard an aqueduct. It also reports land revenue for this duty.
What remains unknown: The account does not show a transfer of land ownership or a move from home. The people and land involved need clearer bounds.
What is needed next: Clarify who owed the duty and how they used the land. Ask what the duty changed for them.

Mukhamedjanov 1994, chapter 12, printed p. 264 (PDF physical p. 265)

Link to this entry

Slaves in the Toprak-kala records

Place and era: Toprak-kala. The chapter describes household records. This question has no settled date.
What the evidence supports: The chapter lists enslaved people in wealthy households. It refers to records seven and eight.
What remains unknown: The chapter does not explain how each person entered a household. Their origins and later homes remain unclear. The cited Tok-kala title needs a clearer link.
What is needed next: Clarify the people and status in the records. Ask what changed in residence, land use or access.

Mukhamedjanov 1994, chapter 12, printed pp. 280–281 (PDF physical pp. 281–282)

Link to this entry

India and the trade in enslaved people

Place and era: India in this account. The specific groups, dates and routes remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: The chapter reports imports and exports of enslaved people. It cites Pigulevskaya for the export list.
What remains unknown: The account does not identify a specific group, capture route or land outcome. It does not establish the later homes of those traded.
What is needed next: Clarify which people the trade reports describe. Ask where they lived and what the trade changed for them.

Mukhamedjanov 1994, chapter 12, printed p. 277 (PDF physical p. 278)

Link to this entry

Sogdians who lived at Tun-huang

Place and era: Tun-huang. The letter dates differ: late second or early fourth century CE. These are not dates of a move.
What the evidence supports: The chapter describes free Sogdian residents at Tun-huang. An estimate also includes slaves and families. The account notes ties with Samarkand.
What remains unknown: The account does not show that all residents arrived by force. An estimate does not give the size of a forced group.
What is needed next: Clarify who lived at Tun-huang and how they came to live there. Keep slave status separate from claims about how all residents arrived.

Mukhamedjanov 1994, chapter 12, printed p. 278 (PDF physical p. 279)

Link to this entry

A Han campaign in Ferghana

Place and era: Ferghana and the eastern Silk Route. This question has no settled campaign date.
What the evidence supports: The chapter reports Han control along the Silk Route and a campaign in Ferghana.
What remains unknown: A campaign does not by itself show that local people lost homes or land. Other Han cases do not fix the date here.
What is needed next: Clarify the reported campaign, affected people or tract, and result. Keep the mission, campaign and later outposts separate.

Mukhamedjanov 1994, chapter 12, printed p. 279 (PDF physical p. 280)

Link to this entry

Land and revenue at Old Nisa

Place and era: Old Nisa. The chapter draws on records from the first century BCE. That is context, not a date for a new land seizure.
What the evidence supports: The chapter describes royal estates and types of land revenue. It names uzbar, dastkirt and patbazik.
What remains unknown: The chapter does not show how these holdings began. It does not establish a new seizure of land or a move by its users.
What is needed next: Clarify who controlled and used the land. Ask what the revenue terms show about property and duties.

Mukhamedjanov 1994, chapter 12, printed p. 281 (PDF physical p. 282)

Link to this entry

Did landholders try to bind people to land?

Place and era: The chapter discusses communes and land. It does not fix a date, actor or tract for this proposed change.
What the evidence supports: The author thinks the state and large landholders tried to bind commune members to the land. He presents this as probable.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish one change for all communities. It leaves the process and its effects on homes and land unresolved.
What is needed next: Clarify which people and land the claim concerns. Ask what evidence supports a change in their duties or freedom to move.

Mukhamedjanov 1994, chapter 12, printed pp. 281–282 (PDF physical pp. 282–283)

Link to this entry

A condition to keep estates

Place and era: Kharagpur in Bengal is the reported place. The account links the claim to Akbar, but gives no event year.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that defeated Kharagpur rulers accepted Islam to keep their family estates. He cites a census report.
What remains unknown: The account does not show whether they kept the estates or lost any land. The terms and effects remain unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the report and define the estates at issue. Ask what the condition changed for the rulers and other users.

Eaton 1993, chapter 5, note 23

Link to this entry

A report of attacks on the Noakhali coast

Place and era: The complaint dates from 1638. It concerns the Noakhali coast in Bengal.
What the evidence supports: Eaton cites a complaint by the governor. It reports Portuguese attacks on Muslims along the coast.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish that people left their homes or lost land. The people and places affected remain unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the complaint and its source. Ask what the attacks changed for homes, land or local control.

Eaton 1993, chapter 5, note 62

Link to this entry

Jessore comes under Mughal rule

Place and era: The source names Jessore in Bengal. It gives no year for this loss of rule.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Mughal forces defeated Pratapaditya and put him in prison. Mughal officers then took control of the lands under his rule. They assessed the revenue from those lands.
What remains unknown: The source does not show that residents lost homes or land rights. The date and the harm to residents remain unclear.
What is needed next: Assess this reported loss of rule. Keep the earlier promise of retained lands separate from the later loss of control.

Eaton 1993, chapter 6, notes 71–73

Link to this entry

Sand Canyon Pueblo: attack and loss of residence

Place and era: Sand Canyon Pueblo, southwest Colorado. The attack was after 1277 CE. The report estimates that use of the site as a home ended around 1280 CE.
What the evidence supports: The site report links a lethal attack to the end of residence at Sand Canyon Pueblo.
What remains unknown: The report does not establish who attacked, where survivors went, or how many people died.
What is needed next: Review this record for atlas admission. Keep the earlier departures separate from the final attack.

Kuckelman 2007, chapter 9, paragraphs 9-16, 51-62, 65-66

Link to this entry

Mahmud cedes territory to Sher Khan

Place and era: Eaton places the cession west of Rajmahal in 1535.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Sher Khan forced Mahmud to give up territory west of Rajmahal. Mahmud also had to pay tribute.
What remains unknown: The exact area and changes to local rights remain unclear. The source does not establish that residents lost homes.
What is needed next: Assess the reported change in control. Keep the later overthrow separate.

Eaton 1993, chapter 6, notes 2 and 3

Link to this entry

Bengal: seizure and sale of wives and children

Place and era: Bengal, South Asia. The account has seventeenth-century context. The dates of the practice are unknown.
What the evidence supports: Manrique reports that tax officials seized wives and children from families he called "heathens". He says they enslaved them and sold them at auction when families lacked the means to pay tax. An editor's note discusses non-Muslim debtors as a broader group.
What remains unknown: The chapter does not establish a change of home or land control. Destinations and numbers are unknown.
What is needed next: Check whether this practice forced a move or changed land use or access. Names, counts and later land titles are not required.

Manrique, Travels of Fray Sebastien Manrique 1629-1643, volume I, chapter VI. Routledge 2016 reflow of the Luard/Hosten translation: physical page 119, sections [20/2]-[21/1]; editorial note 5, physical page 123. Original printed-page-53 crosswalk unverified.

Link to this entry

East Tennessee: moves into walled towns

Place and era: East Tennessee, late 1200s to early 1300s. The study links the Hiwassee Island and Dallas periods.
What the evidence supports: The authors report that turmoil led people from scattered farms and small villages into Dallas towns with wooden walls.
What remains unknown: The kind of pressure on these moves is unclear. The account does not show that every move was forced. Safety, imposed moves and agreed moves remain possible.
What is needed next: Examine how turmoil changed where people lived and what choices they had.

Lynne P. Sullivan, Kevin E. Smith, Scott C. Meeks and Shawn M. Patch (2024), "Tracking Mississippian Migrations from the Central Mississippi Valley to the Ridge and Valley with a Unified Absolute Chronology," American Antiquity 89(2): 221-237. DOI: 10.1017/aaq.2024.1. Relevant pages: 225, 226, 228 and 231.

Link to this entry

Middle Cumberland to Ridge and Valley: possible migration

Place and era: Middle Cumberland and Ridge and Valley regions, from the mid-1200s into the 1400s.
What the evidence supports: The authors propose a gradual movement between these regions. They compare dates, objects and studies of human remains.
What remains unknown: The migration model does not establish one forced route or one cause for all moves.
What is needed next: Identify a bounded move and the pressure, loss of residence or change in land use involved.

Link to this entry

Hixon mound: possible refuge from northern Georgia

Place and era: Hixon mound, southeast Tennessee, in the 1200s and 1300s.
What the evidence supports: The authors report differences between people buried at Hixon and three nearby groups. They suggest refuge from northern Georgia, perhaps Etowah, as one explanation.
What remains unknown: The authors call the refuge idea speculative. The comparison does not prove an Etowah origin or a forced move. The study identifies no living area linked to the mound.
What is needed next: Examine whether the people buried at Hixon came from northern Georgia and what caused any move.

Link to this entry

Etowah: later use by about 1400

Place and era: Etowah, northern Georgia, by about 1400, after the earlier violent collapse.
What the evidence supports: The study reports that people used Etowah again. It became one of several towns of moderate size in the region.
What remains unknown: The later residents are not matched to those who left. The study does not establish a new taking of land or forced move into the site.
What is needed next: Keep the later use linked to the earlier loss. Examine whether later use involved a separate taking or forced move.

Link to this entry

A Christian farm community at Bhallua

Place and era: Bhallua; observed in 1713
What the evidence supports: A priest visited the village. He described a local leader, his sons and workers in a farm community.
What remains unknown: The start date and any loss of earlier land use are unknown. The source does not establish the origin of the leader.
What is needed next: Trace how the village formed and who used its land before.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 9, notes 98, 99, 100.

Link to this entry

A disputed market on shrine land

Place and era: Satkania; grant in 1734, complaint date unknown
What the evidence supports: A shrine trustee said Tej Singh set up a market on shrine land without right. The trustee asked for its removal.
What remains unknown: The passage does not give the judgment or say that the market was removed.
What is needed next: Find the outcome of the complaint and its effect on land use.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 9, notes 51.

Link to this entry

A gap in residence at Strawberry Island

Place and era: Strawberry Island, lower Snake River, Washington. Early homes predate European contact. The date of any departure is unknown.
What the evidence supports: The report records two groups of homes built at different times. The author suggests a long gap in residence, followed by later use of the site.
What remains unknown: The cause of the gap is unknown. Some homes had several floors, so the evidence does not show that all people left.
What is needed next: Check the dates and layers for each group of homes. Look for evidence of why residence ended or changed.

Randall F. Schalk (editor; Chapter 7 author), The 1978 and 1979 Excavations at Strawberry Island in the McNary Reservoir, Project Report 19 (1983), Chapter 7, printed pp. 137–148.

Link to this entry

A general transfers control under Sena V

Place and era: Sri Lanka during Sena V's reign, in the tenth century. The source reports the second regnal year.
What the evidence supports: Codrington describes a general's retaliation after the king killed his brother. Control changed before reconciliation and the king's return.
What remains unknown: The account calls the treatment oppressive but does not specify all acts. It does not establish mass expulsion.
What is needed next: Identify the acts and affected places. Keep this episode separate from Mahinda's later flight.

H. W. Codrington, A Short History of Ceylon, chapter III, Sena V (web transcription).

Link to this entry

A grant and settlement at Pingla

Place and era: Midnapur; a later account places the grant during the reign of Taj Khan Karrani, 1564–65.
What the evidence supports: A tradition links Khondkar Shah Ala to a grant from Taj Khan Karrani. Local people helped clear forest.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish the grant boundary, earlier land rights or any forced move.
What is needed next: Check what rights the grant changed and who used the land.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, note 44.

Link to this entry

A Kalinga ruler seeks refuge in Lanka

Place and era: Kalinga and Sri Lanka, probably the early seventh century. The date is not secure.
What the evidence supports: Codrington reports that a ruler left Kalinga because of war and became a monk in Lanka.
What remains unknown: The ruler is unnamed. The link to Pulakesin's conquest and its date is tentative. No wider group of refugees is established.
What is needed next: Identify the chronicle passage and assess the reported departure. Keep its cause open.

H. W. Codrington, A Short History of Ceylon, chapter III, Kalinga ruler flight (web transcription).

Link to this entry

A kazi settlement in Gaurnadi: record 696

Place and era: Gaurnadi, Bakarganj; recorded in surveys from 1902–1913. The settlement date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: A survey links the community to a kazi who was among the early settlers.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish earlier land rights or a taking. This village has a separate survey record.
What is needed next: Trace this community and its land history without merging the two records.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, note 91.

Link to this entry

A lama and part of his flock in refuge

Place and era: From Sikkim to Puraniya district. Hamilton published the account in 1819. He gives no exact year for the flight.
What the evidence supports: Hamilton says a lama fled with part of his flock to escape Gorkhalese violence. The lama was his main source on Sikkim.
What remains unknown: Hamilton reports what an informant told him. The home village, group size and ethnic identity remain unknown. The account does not establish permanent settlement or a later return.
What is needed next: Trace this group and its former homes. Keep this earlier flight separate from the letter of 1827.

Francis Buchanan Hamilton, An Account of the Kingdom of Nepal (1819). Hamilton1819 Introduction printed1–2, with entire introduction1–6 read for method; Country of Sikim118–128 for bounded context. HTML transcription with print anchors; no scanned-page verification. Informant account, not an eyewitness claim about flight.

Link to this entry

A land grant and settlement at Mithapur

Place and era: Mithapur in Bengal; an eighteenth-century settlement account.
What the evidence supports: Eaton links settlement at Mithapur to a revenue grant and cooperation between Janaki Ballav Roy and Shaikh Ghazi.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish prior rights or show that anyone had to leave. Forest does not mean vacant land.
What is needed next: Identify the land rights before and after the grant, and any earlier residents.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, notes 94.

Link to this entry

A leader leaves Saiyidpur

Place and era: Saiyidpur in Bengal; an account from 1906 about the eighteenth century.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that a captain got a holy man to leave after local farmers withheld rent. The captain then gained revenue rights.
What remains unknown: How the man left and where he went are unknown. The account does not establish a violent attack.
What is needed next: Define the change in control. Keep the unknown means of departure explicit.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, notes 97.

Link to this entry

A possible refuge at Cerro de en medio

Place and era: Aguascalientes, Mexico. The study concerns the Late Classic period, 500 to 900 CE. This does not date a known flight.
What the evidence supports: The study records hilltop homes, walls and food stores. The authors suggest that people used the site as a refuge.
What remains unknown: The study does not show who sought shelter or why people later left. The authors also consider other uses for the food stores and hilltop.
What is needed next: Look for evidence of when people lived at the site, why they came and why they left.

Manuel de Jesús Dueñas-Garcia, Miriam Selene Campos-Martinez and Nicola Lercari, Evaluating settlement defensibility during the late classic (2022), author-uploaded version: internal pp. 17–24; methods/results pp. 7–16. Final pagination not mapped.

Link to this entry

A possible temporary move at Consol

Place and era: Consol, in the Upper Ohio Valley. The study compares the earlier village with sites occupied in the 1300s. It does not give the date of a temporary move.
What the evidence supports: Two village layouts overlap. The authors infer that residents had to live elsewhere for a time between the two occupations. They think that the same community built both villages.
What remains unknown: The place where people stayed, the length of the gap and its cause remain unknown. The source does not establish force or loss of land rights. It leaves the cause of later village growth open.
What is needed next: Check the dates and order of construction. Look for evidence of where people lived during the gap and why they moved.

John P. Hart and Bernard K. Means, The Monongahela tradition in “real time”: Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates (2022), PLOS ONE 17(10): e0276014, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0276014. Discussion, paragraph beginning Consol’s two components represented discrete occupations; temporary relocation and same-community inference remain qualified.

Link to this entry

A southward village shift near the Spoon River

Place and era: Central Illinois River Valley, near the Spoon and Illinois river junction. Wilson links the shift to Oneota arrival around 1300.
What the evidence supports: Wilson reports that villages shifted south as Oneota people arrived in the area. He suggests conflict as a cause. He gives alliances and captivity as possible explanations for mixed pottery.
What remains unknown: The cause of the move is not established. The source does not name every community or identify the attackers at Orendorf. Mixed pottery alone does not prove captive movement.
What is needed next: Check the link between the reported move and conflict. Keep alliance, captive and other accounts distinct.

Greg D. Wilson, Incinerated Villages in the North (2015), printed pp. 104. Original author-hosted chapter; full eight-page text layer and selected published images read. Underlying excavation reports not independently read.
Gregory D. Wilson, Mallory A. Melton, Amber M. VanDerwarker, Reassessing the chronology of the Mississippian Central Illinois River Valley using Bayesian analysis (2017), ahead-of-print physical pp. 4. Consulted author-archived ahead-of-print version; physical pages1–4 and13–15 read. No full model audit or crosswalk to2018issue22–38. Overlapping author, not independent attack confirmation.

Link to this entry

Afghan refuge in Sylhet

Place and era: Southern Sylhet; late sixteenth-century context
What the evidence supports: Eaton says Afghan chiefs fled Mughal forces as they advanced. The chiefs found refuge in southern Sylhet.
What remains unknown: The passage does not name their home tracts. It does not show what changed for people already in Sylhet.
What is needed next: Trace this flight and its effects. Keep it distinct from earlier Afghan arrivals.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 9, Religious Gentry of Sylhet opening narrative.

Link to this entry

Ahom defeat of sultanate forces

Place and era: Kuch Bihar and Kamrup, in 1533.
What the evidence supports: A note by Eaton reports that Ahom forces defeated the sultanate army. The sultanate then withdrew from Kuch Bihar and Kamrup.
What remains unknown: This does not show that the wider population was deported. The account does not define the later control of every part of the region.
What is needed next: Compare this reversal with the earlier sultanate conquest. Keep it distinct from the broad history of Ahom settlement.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 7, section s1.7.6, notes 75.

Link to this entry

Altamaha and Ocute withdrawal

Place and era: Coastal South Carolina toward Guale and Florida, after the 1715 war.
What the evidence supports: Smith traces Altamaha and Ocute as Lower Yamassee towns. He reports their later withdrawal toward Guale and Florida.
What remains unknown: The order of events does not establish whether or how people were forced to move. It does not show that they took others’ land on arrival.
What is needed next: Keep these groups and their destinations separate from the Lower Creek return.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, p. 36.

Link to this entry

An order to take back land grants

Place and era: Sylhet; order in 1672-1673
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports an order to take back Hindu rent-free grants. He also records further grants to Hindus in Sylhet after that order.
What remains unknown: The order does not prove that each grant was taken back. Later grants do not prove that no one lost rights.
What is needed next: Find evidence of how the order was applied to particular grants.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 9, notes 93, 94.

Link to this entry

An unexplained departure from Daimabad

Place and era: Daimabad, Maharashtra, India. This question concerns the end of the Late Harappan phase and the later Daimabad phase. The departure date is unresolved.
What the evidence supports: Sali reports a gap between occupations and weathered deposits. He says the reason that the Late Harappan residents left is unknown.
What remains unknown: The report does not establish why people left or where they went. Later occupation does not show that the new residents forced them out.
What is needed next: Check the layers and dates of the gap. Look for evidence of the cause of departure and later use.

S. A. Sali, Daimabad 1976–79, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India 83 (1986), printed pp. 21, 24, 26.

Link to this entry

Apalachee settlement near Savannah Town

Place and era: From the Tallahassee area to near former Savannah Town, 1704.
What the evidence supports: Smith reports Apalachee settlement near former Savannah Town. Barnwell’s map marks the Apalatachee town as deserted in 1715.
What remains unknown: The riverbank and local land relations are unclear. The account does not show that all arrivals were captives. Later copies of maps do not prove continued residence.
What is needed next: Keep this place of arrival separate from the attacks in Florida. Check the local land relations.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, pp. 34, 35, 36.

Link to this entry

Birbhum under Mughal rule

Place and era: Birbhum, in the early Mughal period described by Eaton.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Birbhum submitted to Mughal rule without resistance. He places this in a western region where much local administration continued.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish eviction of the people who lived there. Continued local rule does not mean there was no change in power.
What is needed next: Assess the change in rule and keep local continuity visible. Do not require expulsion for a land-control question.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 7, section s1.7.5, notes 67.

Link to this entry

Blue Mesa: death and a burned house

Place and era: Blue Mesa, Colorado, site 5LP379, in the early Pueblo I regional study. The event date is unresolved.
What the evidence supports: Potter reports an interpretation of a woman’s death as violence followed by destruction of the house.
What remains unknown: He also allows burial followed by ritual burning. The source does not settle which process occurred.
What is needed next: Read Fritz and Honeycutt’s report to check the remains, fire and residential context.

James M. Potter, The Community, Animas–La Plata Project, Volume XVI: Final Synthetic Report, chapter 13 (2010), pp. 253, 255.

Link to this entry

Bodo Canyon: a house fire

Place and era: Bodo Canyon, Colorado, site 5LP481, in the early Pueblo I regional study. The event date is unresolved.
What the evidence supports: Potter reports two people interpreted as trapped when a pit house burned.
What remains unknown: The cause of the fire is unclear. Accidental fire remains possible; deliberate removal is not established.
What is needed next: Read Fuller’s report to check the fire context and the end of residential use.

James M. Potter, The Community, Animas–La Plata Project, Volume XVI: Final Synthetic Report, chapter 13 (2010), pp. 253, 256.

Link to this entry

Burned homes and departure at Orendorf

Place and era: Central Illinois River Valley. Wilson places the final village fire around 1250. This is an estimate.
What the evidence supports: Wilson says fire destroyed the final village. People left in haste and left valuable goods in their homes. He says warfare was the most likely cause.
What remains unknown: The attackers, exact year and places where survivors went are unknown. The account does not prove that a man found in a burned house died in that fire. Regional grave counts do not give a death count for this event.
What is needed next: Assess this village destruction and departure under the atlas rules. Keep the likely cause and estimated date clear.

Link to this entry

Burned homes at Buckeye Bend

Place and era: Central Illinois River Valley. Wilson places this village in his account of village fires in the late 1200s. No exact year is set.
What the evidence supports: Wilson names Buckeye Bend as a village with burned rows of homes around a plaza. His account treats warfare as the most likely cause of the village fires.
What remains unknown: The cause is likely, not certain. The account gives less detail on departure here than at Orendorf. The attackers, deaths and places where residents went are unknown. We do not copy details from Orendorf.
What is needed next: Assess the probable wartime destruction of these homes. Keep any departure and its date separate from what the evidence shows.

Greg D. Wilson, Incinerated Villages in the North (2015), printed pp. 103. Original author-hosted chapter; full eight-page text layer and selected published images read. Underlying excavation reports not independently read.

Link to this entry

Burned homes at Star Bridges

Place and era: Central Illinois River Valley. Wilson places this village in his account of village fires in the late 1200s. No exact year is set.
What the evidence supports: Wilson names Star Bridges as a village with burned rows of homes around a plaza. His account treats warfare as the most likely cause of the village fires.
What remains unknown: The cause is likely, not certain. The account gives less detail on departure here than at Orendorf. The attackers, deaths and places where residents went are unknown. We do not copy details from Orendorf.
What is needed next: Assess the probable wartime destruction of these homes. Keep any departure and its date separate from what the evidence shows.

Link to this entry

Captives settled as farmers in Arakan

Place and era: Arakan; dates unresolved
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that captives taken by the Arakanese were settled on land as farmers.
What remains unknown: The particular raids, places where captives settled and overlap with other capture accounts remain unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the places where captives settled and their links to the reported raids.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 9, notes 19.

Link to this entry

Capture raids in Lower Bengal

Place and era: Lower Bengal waterways and islands; Bernier was there in 1665, but raid dates are unclear.
What the evidence supports: Eaton quotes Bernier on Portuguese raiders under Arakanese protection. The account reports capture, slavery, burning and deserted islands.
What remains unknown: The passage does not identify each raid, island or number of people. It does not show that Arakanese forces joined the raids.
What is needed next: Assess the reported removal practice without merging it with other attacks or tax seizures.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, note 83.

Link to this entry

Chickasaw settlement and river crossing

Place and era: Near Fort Moore, around 1722–1723, with a move across the river in 1737.
What the evidence supports: Smith reports a Chickasaw settlement and a later move across the river.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish force or a taking of land. Residence until the Revolution is only a possibility.
What is needed next: Trace the reasons for the moves and the land relations at each place.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, p. 36.

Link to this entry

Coastal guards bar entry under Sena II

Place and era: The coast of Sri Lanka during Sena II's ninth-century reign. Sites and exact dates are unknown.
What the evidence supports: Codrington reports guards placed on the coast to bar entry by members of suppressed religious groups.
What remains unknown: The account does not identify prior residents among those barred. Expulsion and blocked return are not established.
What is needed next: Identify the groups and whether the restriction prevented entry, return, or both.

H. W. Codrington, A Short History of Ceylon, chapter III, Sena II: coastal guards (web transcription).

Link to this entry

Conquest of Bhallua

Place and era: Bhallua in eastern Bengal, around 1611.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Mughal forces took a fort and raided the countryside. They killed or imprisoned peasants who refused to submit. Ananta Manik left his lands, which the Mughals took over. His minister accepted Mughal rank.
What remains unknown: The account does not show that all peasants fled. It does not give their destinations or the share killed or held captive.
What is needed next: Keep the peasants, the ruler who left and the minister distinct. Assess the land takeover without a claim that later religious change had one cause.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 7, section s1.7.7, notes 93, 94, 95.

Link to this entry

Coosa and nearby chiefdoms

Place and era: Southeastern North America, in accounts from 1540 and 1560.
What the evidence supports: Hally reports that up to six chiefdoms acknowledged Coosa rule. He cites Spanish accounts from 1540 and 1560.
What remains unknown: The chapter does not show how this rule began or establish a change in local land use. The two dates do not prove continuous rule.
What is needed next: Check the cited accounts for how control changed and what it meant for the land.

Hally (1993), The Territorial Size of Mississippian Chiefdoms, pp. 163–164.

Link to this entry

Deaths of family members near Dhaka

Place and era: Near Dhaka, in 1617.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Qasim Khan killed his chief wives when he faced defeat. Some comrades also killed members of their families.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish a change in land or residence from these deaths. It does not give a share of all families harmed.
What is needed next: Trace the relation of the event to land or residence. Keep the reported deaths visible. Do not invent a removal.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 7, section s1.7.1, notes 20.

Link to this entry

Defeat and service at Shahzadpur

Place and era: Shahzadpur, in 1609.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Tuqmaq Khan defeated the local ruler. He then employed and converted the son of the ruler. The governor disapproved and moved Tuqmaq Khan from his assigned estate.
What remains unknown: The account does not show that the son was forced to migrate or was enslaved. It does not define the land outcome of the defeat.
What is needed next: Trace what changed at the defeated estate. Keep service, conversion and movement distinct.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 7, section s1.7.3, notes 60.

Link to this entry

Disputed rent at Panam Dulalpur

Place and era: Panam Dulalpur in Bengal; an account set in the early eighteenth century.
What the evidence supports: Eaton describes gifts to a holy man that became compulsory rent. Some villagers appealed and lost. Officials then recognized him as the landholder.
What remains unknown: The exact date and the former land rights are unclear. The account does not establish that villagers left.
What is needed next: Define the change in land rights and the people it affected.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, notes 95.

Link to this entry

Enslaved artisans in Pepiliyana grants

Place and era: Pepiliyana Vihara, Sri Lanka, in the fifteenth century. Specific grant dates remain unchecked.
What the evidence supports: Codrington describes documents that grant enslaved people with land. Many were artisans.
What remains unknown: The cited documents were unpublished in his account. A change of ownership does not establish that people moved.
What is needed next: Read the grant terms and distinguish control of people from forced movement and changes in residence.

H. W. Codrington, A Short History of Ceylon, chapter III, Pepiliyana grants (web transcription).

Link to this entry

Families forced from homes near Jhalakati

Place and era: Jhalakati in Bengal; departure before a survey in 1906.
What the evidence supports: Eaton quotes a survey that reports pressure forced several Namasudra families to leave. Other villagers then held their land and homes.
What remains unknown: The departure date and village name are unclear. The survey date does not date the departure.
What is needed next: Resolve the date range and village location. These gaps do not disprove the reported loss.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, notes 99.

Link to this entry

Farming leases at Swarupkati

Place and era: Bakarganj; a 1906 survey recalls leases from about 220 years earlier, around 1686.
What the evidence supports: The account says the Pals, Dasses and Chandras settled under farming leases from Nayerkaleri landlords.
What remains unknown: Earlier occupants and any pressure remain unclear. This is separate from the thirteenth-century refuge story.
What is needed next: Trace the lease terms and earlier rights, linked to the broader Bakarganj question.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, note 82.

Link to this entry

Flight and killing at Cakradhara

Place and era: Kashmir. The account follows a royal return dated to 1121. The date of the fire is not yet settled.
What the evidence supports: Kalhana's account says families from Vijayuksetra and nearby towns and villages fled to a shrine. Royal soldiers also went there. Bhiksu's forces besieged the refuge. A man set fire to it to kill an enemy inside. The text describes deaths within and the killing of people who escaped. It then says homes stood empty because householders and their families died.
What remains unknown: Errors remain possible in the online text. We did not check the printed pages or the Sanskrit. The account gives no reliable count of deaths or lost homes. It does not establish a single ethnic group or an order to start the fire. Later control of the empty homes is unknown.
What is needed next: Assess this bounded case under the atlas rules. Keep the date, numbers and later ownership unknown where the evidence does not resolve them.

Kalhana, Kalhana’s Rajatarangini: A Chronicle of the Kings of Kasmir, translated by M. A. Stein, volume II (1900), Book VIII 971–995, printed pp. 76–78; context VIII 947–1008, printed pp. 75–79. Unproofread online translation OCR; page images and Sanskrit not verified.

Link to this entry

Four Chattahoochee towns burned

Place and era: Coweta, Kasihta, Tuskegee and Kolimi on the Chattahoochee, December 1685.
What the evidence supports: Smith reports that Matheos burned the four towns after failing to capture English traders.
What remains unknown: The burning does not show that all residents left for good. This Tuskegee is not the Overhill Cherokee town of the same name.
What is needed next: Trace what the burning did to residence in each town. Keep the later 1690 move separate.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, p. 29.

Link to this entry

Gilimale changes from dedicated land to a royal village

Place and era: Gilimale, Sri Lanka. The earlier dedication is linked to Vijaya Bahu I; the later change is not dated.
What the evidence supports: Codrington lists Gilimale as land once dedicated to feed pilgrims and later held as a royal village.
What remains unknown: The account does not date the resumption or explain its effect on cultivators and former beneficiaries.
What is needed next: Locate the act of resumption and establish whose rights changed. Do not infer eviction from the title change.

H. W. Codrington, A Short History of Ceylon, chapter III, Authorities: Gilimale (web transcription).

Link to this entry

Guale missions destroyed

Place and era: Guale coastal missions, late 1680s.
What the evidence supports: Smith links the destruction of coastal missions to conflict between English and Spanish powers.
What remains unknown: The passage does not tie all regional captives or moves to this episode. Links to the people and settlements attacked in 1702–1706 remain unclear.
What is needed next: Keep this earlier episode distinct from the later Florida attacks. Trace the loss of the mission settlements.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, p. 34.

Link to this entry

Hidden Valley: burned houses

Place and era: Hidden Valley near Durango, Colorado. House construction dates cluster in 760–761 CE; the departure date is not established.
What the evidence supports: Potter reports that the excavated houses burned at abandonment and had not been salvaged.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish an attack, a single fire across the settlement, or a forced departure.
What is needed next: Read Carlson’s excavation report to trace how and when use of the houses ended.

James M. Potter, The Community, Animas–La Plata Project, Volume XVI: Final Synthetic Report, chapter 13 (2010), pp. 237.

Link to this entry

Hijli under Mughal rule

Place and era: Hijli, in the early Mughal period described by Eaton.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Hijli submitted to Mughal rule without resistance. Its ruler paid tribute and kept control of local administration.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish eviction of the people who lived there. Continued local rule does not mean there was no change in power.
What is needed next: Assess the change in rule and keep local continuity visible. Do not require expulsion for a land-control question.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 7, section s1.7.5, notes 67.

Link to this entry

Kazi families in Gaurnadi: record 717

Place and era: Gaurnadi, Bakarganj; recorded in surveys from 1902–1913. The settlement date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: A survey describes kazi families as the original settlers of this village.
What remains unknown: Earlier land rights remain unclear. The later population count does not count people harmed or first settlers.
What is needed next: Check this village and its earlier land use as a separate question.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, note 92.

Link to this entry

Kendangamuwa becomes a royal village

Place and era: Kendangamuwa, Sri Lanka. An earlier grant is linked to Parakrama Bahu VI; the later change is not dated.
What the evidence supports: Codrington lists land given to Aramanapola Vihara that later appeared as a royal village.
What remains unknown: The date, act and effect on residents remain unclear. Royal control does not by itself prove their removal.
What is needed next: Locate the resumption and distinguish changes in revenue rights from loss of residence or use.

H. W. Codrington, A Short History of Ceylon, chapter III, Authorities: Kendangamuwa (web transcription).

Link to this entry

Khan Jahan at Bagerhat

Place and era: Bagerhat; Khan Jahan died in 1459, and traditions were collected in 1870.
What the evidence supports: Eaton describes a tomb title and public works, alongside a later account of a revenue grant and cultivation.
What remains unknown: These sources support different claims. They do not establish forced labor or empty land.
What is needed next: Keep the claims separate and trace the grant and earlier land use.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, notes 50–56.

Link to this entry

Land assigned to the Chittagong garrison

Place and era: Chittagong; from 1666, later change undated
What the evidence supports: Troops received rent-free plots. Eaton reports that the government later took the lands back. The troops or their descendants became landlords who collected revenue.
What remains unknown: The later date and the rights lost or retained are unclear. The account does not say the troops left.
What is needed next: Identify what rights changed in the later repossession.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 9, notes 29.

Link to this entry

Land grant to Firuzpuri near Malda

Place and era: Near Malda, in the Mughal period described by Eaton.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Shah Nimat Allah Firuzpuri received a grant of land from the governor. His servants and descendants later gained wealth from it.
What remains unknown: The account does not identify prior holders or changes in their access to the land. The exact tract of the grant is not given.
What is needed next: Trace what the grant changed for people on the land. Do not count the size of the grant as a number of displaced people.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 7, section s1.7.2, notes 30, 31.

Link to this entry

Land grants for Muhammad Rabi

Place and era: Sylhet; grants in 1753 and 1756
What the evidence supports: Grants supported Muhammad Rabi, his workers, family and religious institutions. The later grant set terms for cultivation and use of the harvest.
What remains unknown: The passage does not establish all prior land uses, actual clearance or the workers' conditions.
What is needed next: Trace earlier use and what changed when the grants took effect.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 9, notes 95, 96.

Link to this entry

Land grants to Ikundā

Place and era: The frontier between Nepal and Sikkim. The commentary describes events in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The grant dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: The commentary on the letter cites grants to Ikundā of land and rights to rule or collect revenue. It also cites land for resettlement.
What remains unknown: The grant texts remain unread in this review. A grant does not prove that settlement occurred or that prior residents lost land.
What is needed next: Read the cited grants. Distinguish the rights they granted from actions on the ground and effects on prior residents.

Julia Shrestha with Martin Gaenszle (editors and translators), A letter from Subba Jayanta Khatri reporting on the killing of Limbus and Lepchas at the Nepal-Sikkim frontier (DNA_0001_0109; VS1883) (2023). DNA_0001_0109 commentary paragraphs on Ikundā; cited RRC_0040_0442 and RRC_0006_0858/RRC_0036_0251/RRC_0036_0252; Hamilton1819 printed123,126. Edition translation and commentary in accepted review. No facsimile or independent translation verification. Commentary is not a separate witness to the letter. English edition/translation/commentary CC BY-SA4.0. Document date1827 is distinct from edition metadata; no facsimile reproduced and no DOI verified.
Francis Buchanan Hamilton, An Account of the Kingdom of Nepal (1819). Hamilton1819 printed123,126: reported civil administration/revenue context; does not establish execution of the cited grants. HTML transcription with print anchors. Earlier administration account is not proof of grant execution or the1827violence.

Link to this entry

Limbu and Lepcha families in forest refuge

Place and era: The frontier between Nepal and Sikkim. A letter reports this flight in 1827. The exact flight dates are unknown.
What the evidence supports: Khatri relays a plea from five messengers. They report that descendants and nephews of Ikundā captured and killed Limbu and Lepcha residents. Some families fled to forest camps. Other families planned to leave.
What remains unknown: Five is the number of messengers, not the total who fled or died. The homes, camp sites and later fate of the families remain unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the flight that already occurred. Keep plans for later moves separate. Examine whether officials granted the request for protection.

Julia Shrestha with Martin Gaenszle (editors and translators), A letter from Subba Jayanta Khatri reporting on the killing of Limbus and Lepchas at the Nepal-Sikkim frontier (DNA_0001_0109; VS1883) (2023). DNA_0001_0109, translation [1r], paragraphs beginning Uprānta and Some family groups; diplomatic line references 6–10,16–23,34–35 supplied by edition; commentary and notes3–9,12–16. Edition translation and commentary in accepted review. No facsimile or independent translation verification. Commentary is not a separate witness to the letter. English edition/translation/commentary CC BY-SA4.0. Document date1827 is distinct from edition metadata; no facsimile reproduced and no DOI verified.

Link to this entry

Loss and retention of land in Bakla

Place and era: Bakla in eastern Bengal, about the time of the Bhallua campaign around 1611.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Ram Chandra was defeated and detained in Dhaka. He kept enough land to support a naval fleet. Mughal tax collectors and other holders received the rest of his lands.
What remains unknown: This was not the loss of all his land. The account does not show that the peasants were expelled. The date is given by its link to the nearby campaign.
What is needed next: Keep both the lost and retained lands visible. Do not turn the detention of the ruler into a mass removal.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 7, section s1.7.7, notes 96.

Link to this entry

Lower Cherokee burnings and westward refuge

Place and era: Northeastern Georgia and the Coosa valley, from 1776 through the end of the Revolution.
What the evidence supports: Smith reports town burnings in 1776 and later movement west. He describes Willstown as a settlement of refugees from the Savannah area.
What remains unknown: Not all departures occurred in 1776. The account does not establish that arrivals displaced earlier Coosa residents.
What is needed next: Trace the moves and receiving settlements. Keep the 1760 burnings and later nineteenth-century removal separate.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, pp. 37, 38.

Link to this entry

Lower Cherokee towns burned in 1760

Place and era: Lower Cherokee towns in northeastern Georgia and northwestern South Carolina, 1760.
What the evidence supports: Smith reports that Montgomery’s forces burned the towns. Towns remained in the region afterward.
What remains unknown: The burning does not establish a permanent departure in 1760.
What is needed next: Trace the loss of homes even where people stayed or rebuilt. Keep this episode separate from the 1776 burnings.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, p. 37.

Link to this entry

Lower Creek movement east

Place and era: Chattahoochee towns and the Ocmulgee and Towaliga valleys, 1690.
What the evidence supports: Smith reports that many towns moved east after continued conflict with Spain. They moved toward English allies. Some towns stayed.
What remains unknown: Some town names in the account are only suggestions. The account does not establish that arrivals took land from earlier residents.
What is needed next: Keep each town’s move and the places of arrival distinct. Separate this move from the 1685 burnings and later return.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, pp. 29, 33.

Link to this entry

Lower Creek return after the Yamassee War

Place and era: Oconee, Ocmulgee and Chattahoochee valleys, after the 1715 war.
What the evidence supports: Smith reports that many groups returned to the Chattahoochee. Earlier Oconee and Ocmulgee sites were left. Lower Cherokee Tugalo was an exception to the wider Savannah valley abandonment pattern.
What remains unknown: The cause of each move and the exact returning groups remain unclear. Copied maps do not prove continued occupation.
What is needed next: Trace the groups and causes of return. Do not infer forced removal from the order of events alone.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, pp. 35, 36, 39.

Link to this entry

Madura is taken and a ruler installed

Place and era: Madura in southern India, during Sena II's reign in the ninth century. The exact year is uncertain.
What the evidence supports: Codrington reports that Sena's general took and sacked Madura, then placed another ruler on its throne.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish civilian expulsion. A Pandyan accession date does not securely date this intervention.
What is needed next: Assess the reported capture and change of rule. Keep the fate of residents open.

H. W. Codrington, A Short History of Ceylon, chapter III, Sena II: Madura (web transcription).

Link to this entry

Mehr Ali at Mehrpur

Place and era: Jessore; an early Mughal tradition recorded in 1982.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports a tradition that Mehr Ali arrived and helped local people grow rice.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish earlier land rights, a taking or a forced move.
What is needed next: Trace the settlement and earlier land use in this area.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, note 42.

Link to this entry

Migrants in Mughal Bengal

Place and era: Bengal, in the Mughal period described by Eaton.
What the evidence supports: Eaton describes soldiers, merchants, clerks and artisans who moved into Bengal from North India. These arrivals formed part of the imperial social order.
What remains unknown: This regional account does not identify one land takeover by all the migrants. Claimed ancestry does not establish a route or a forced move.
What is needed next: Trace distinct communities and their links to land. Do not treat religion or elite insults as proof that people were displaced.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 7, section s1.7.2, notes 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36.

Link to this entry

Mughal annexation of Sylhet

Place and era: Sylhet; reported in 1612
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that the Mughals annexed Sylhet in 1612.
What remains unknown: The passage does not describe effects on residents or private land rights. It does not say that the earlier refugees were expelled.
What is needed next: Trace the change in rule and its local effects.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 9, Religious Gentry of Sylhet opening narrative.

Link to this entry

Mughal conquest of Kuch Bihar and Kamrup

Place and era: Kuch Bihar and Kamrup, in 1613.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Mughal forces took forts and drove the ruler into Kamrup. He later submitted and was sent to Dhaka. The Mughals took control of both regions and imposed a new land tax system.
What remains unknown: The account does not show that all farmers left. It does not give a full area of land lost or a permanent end date.
What is needed next: Keep the moves of the ruler distinct from the changes imposed on farmers. Compare this conquest with the later revolts.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 7, section s1.7.6, notes 82, 83, 84, 85, 86.

Link to this entry

Nasir al-Din at Murarbond

Place and era: Sylhet; a Mughal-period tradition recorded in 1982.
What the evidence supports: The account says Nasir al-Din arrived and taught local people to grow rice.
What remains unknown: These changes do not by themselves show that land was taken.
What is needed next: Check how land use and control changed at Murarbond.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, note 43.

Link to this entry

New revenue collectors at Ambarabad

Place and era: Ambarabad in Bengal; a revenue district formed in 1734.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that small landholders said they requested revenue collectors. He argues that pressure from Mughal power better explains their agreement.
What remains unknown: The landholders described a request. Eaton instead infers pressure. The earlier land rights and any eviction remain unclear.
What is needed next: Compare the reported request with the evidence for pressure and changes in land rights.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, notes 57, 58.

Link to this entry

Oconee River village burned

Place and era: An Oconee River village, 1767.
What the evidence supports: Smith reports that an occupied village was burned.
What remains unknown: Its exact identity is unclear. A town shown on a 1774 map may be the same place, but that link is uncertain.
What is needed next: Trace the destruction and possible later residence. A village name or casualty count is not needed to examine the loss.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, p. 37.

Link to this entry

Okfuskenena burned and Creek towns left

Place and era: Middle Chattahoochee and the modern West Point Lake area toward Alabama, 1793.
What the evidence supports: Smith reports that Georgians attacked and burned Okfuskenena. He links the attack to Creek towns in the area moving to Alabama.
What remains unknown: The number of towns attacked is uncertain. The broad destination does not establish an exact route or receiving site.
What is needed next: Trace the attack and departures using the boundaries of the time. Georgia then ended farther east, at the Oconee.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, pp. 38, 39.

Link to this entry

Overhill departures and loss of land

Place and era: The lower Little Tennessee valley, in the Revolutionary and Federal periods. The account includes the treaties of 1798 and 1819.
What the evidence supports: Davis says settler pressure forced Cherokee families south. Many moved to the Hiwassee valley and beyond. He says the treaties transferred land to the United States and opened it to settlers. Some families stayed or moved nearby. The 1819 treaty allowed some to stay on reserved land.
What remains unknown: The account does not link each move to one treaty or each treaty to one riverbank. The 31 people or family heads who received reserved land lived in a wider area. They are not a count of all who lost homes.
What is needed next: Keep the two land transfers distinct. Check how these earlier moves relate to the wider removal case. Keep the families who stayed visible.

Davis (1986), Stability and Change in Aboriginal Settlement within the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley, printed pp. 419, 420, 427, 428, 429.

Link to this entry

Overhill towns as places of refuge

Place and era: Tomotley, Tuskegee and Mialoquo in the lower Little Tennessee valley. Eighteenth century.
What the evidence supports: Davis says these towns probably grew as places of refuge. People came from Lower, Middle and possibly Valley Towns. He also reports that later refugees joined the towns. They came from other Cherokee and southeastern groups.
What remains unknown: The cause and date of each move remain unclear. The account does not show that these arrivals took land from people who lived there.
What is needed next: Trace why people left and what happened to land at each end. Refuge alone does not show that the new arrivals took land.

Davis (1986), Stability and Change in Aboriginal Settlement within the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley, printed pp. 424, 425, 428.

Link to this entry

Pachet under Mughal rule

Place and era: Pachet, in the early Mughal period described by Eaton.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Pachet submitted to Mughal rule without resistance. He places this in a western region where much local administration continued.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish eviction of the people who lived there. Continued local rule does not mean there was no change in power.
What is needed next: Assess the change in rule and keep local continuity visible. Do not require expulsion for a land-control question.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 7, section s1.7.5, notes 67.

Link to this entry

Pir Qutb at Kutubpur

Place and era: Narayanganj, Dhaka; the settlement date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: A survey links the village name to Pir Qutb and recalls no homesteads when he arrived.
What remains unknown: No homesteads does not mean no earlier land use or rights.
What is needed next: Trace the settlement and earlier uses of the land.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, note 93.

Link to this entry

Possible captivity at Crable

Place and era: Central Illinois River Valley. Wilson places this account in the later Mississippian period. The burial has no exact date here.
What the evidence supports: Wilson reports a young woman buried in an abandoned storage pit at Crable. He infers low status from how her body was treated. He offers captivity as a possible explanation.
What remains unknown: Captivity is not established. Her prior home, origin and any forced move are unknown. The burial does not by itself show forced work or loss of her former home.
What is needed next: Check what the burial evidence can establish about captivity and residence. Keep a possible captive identity separate from a proven forced move.

Link to this entry

Possible Coosa movement downstream

Place and era: Ridge and Valley area and the later Weiss Reservoir area; after the mid-sixteenth-century Spanish expeditions.
What the evidence supports: Smith suggests that people left the Ridge and Valley area and moved downstream.
What remains unknown: Gaps in known occupation do not by themselves prove a departure or forced move.
What is needed next: Check the proposed movement. Keep it separate from Coosa rule and the medieval Etowah site.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, p. 32.

Link to this entry

Possible new groups at Reckner

Place and era: Reckner, in the Allegheny Mountains. The study places the village in the 1300s. It does not date the proposed arrivals.
What the evidence supports: The authors interpret village growth as the possible addition of groups. One suggestion is that the groups asked to join. They state that the wall pattern does not reveal membership.
What remains unknown: The source does not establish the groups' origins or moves. It does not establish force, exclusion or loss of former homes. These are not shown by the lack of a new wall.
What is needed next: Check the original site study and the proposed addition of groups. Trace prior residence if the evidence permits.

John P. Hart and Bernard K. Means, The Monongahela tradition in “real time”: Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates (2022), PLOS ONE 17(10): e0276014, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0276014. Discussion, paragraph beginning A second example is the Reckner site; fourteenth-century context and paragraph discussion of group petitions/palisade visibility.

Link to this entry

Possible new households at Peck No. 1

Place and era: Peck No. 1, in the Allegheny Mountains. The study compares village date ranges that overlap around 1270 to 1310. It does not date the proposed arrivals.
What the evidence supports: The authors interpret two village expansions as possible additions of small groups. One proposed explanation is that the groups were families or lineages. The proposed checks on new members and role of a leader rely on comparisons with other societies.
What remains unknown: The source does not identify an origin village or prove a move. It does not show whether force caused anyone to leave a former home. A larger village plan is not a count of people.
What is needed next: Check the original site study. Test the proposed arrival of groups. Keep their origin and former home questions open.

John P. Hart and Bernard K. Means, The Monongahela tradition in “real time”: Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates (2022), PLOS ONE 17(10): e0276014, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0276014. Discussion, paragraph beginning Peck1 represented growth by the addition; inference and ethnographic analogies attributed to Means/reference46.

Link to this entry

Possible Oconee movement to coastal missions

Place and era: Oconee valley and coastal missions; the proposed move has no fixed date.
What the evidence supports: Smith suggests that people moved to coastal missions. He offers this as a possible cause of the valley’s population decline.
What remains unknown: The passage does not establish that this move occurred or that people were forced to leave.
What is needed next: Check whether the move occurred and what happened to land in the valley.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, p. 28.

Link to this entry

Possible potter residence near the Wabash

Place and era: Slack Farm and other sites near the Ohio and Wabash rivers. The study covers a broad period from about 1400 to 1700. The date of any household move is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Pollack and Munson compare local pottery with vessels linked to Oneota traditions. They propose two explanations: traded vessels or resident potters. They suggest household moves, marriage or kinship as possible ways to support exchange.
What remains unknown: The source does not establish that households moved. It does not show force or a loss of local homes. The political reasons for the exchange remain unknown.
What is needed next: Test trade and local production as explanations for the vessels. If evidence supports resident potters, trace how residence began and its effects on prior residents.

David Pollack and Cheryl Ann Munson, Caborn-Welborn Ceramics: Intersite Comparisons and Extraregional Interaction, Current Archaeological Research in Kentucky, Volume Five (1998), printed pp. 192–194; conditional exchange context p. 195.

Link to this entry

Refuge and settlement in Bakarganj

Place and era: Bakarganj in Bengal; early thirteenth-century refuge and later accounts of settlement.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Hindu chiefs fled to Bakarganj. He also describes local groups who caught fish and later became farmers.
What remains unknown: The departure sites and changes in local land rights are unclear. Refuge alone does not prove that arrivals took land from others.
What is needed next: Keep flight, arrival and changes for local residents as separate questions.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, notes 81, 82.

Link to this entry

Reported deaths at Saunaktuk

Place and era: Saunaktuk in Arctic Canada. The article dates use of the site to about 1370. This does not date the attack.
What the evidence supports: The authors report deliberate tool marks on human bones from a house site. They interpret the bones and a local attack account as evidence that attackers killed residents. The reported deaths meant loss of homes for those residents. The authors suggest that the residents were Inuit.
What remains unknown: Some marks on the bones can reflect acts after death. They do not prove how each person died. The link between the bones and the account remains uncertain. The attack date, attackers and fate of other residents remain unknown.
What is needed next: Trace what happened to other residents and whether they left or returned.

Jerry Melbye and Scott I. Fairgrieve, A Massacre and Possible Cannibalism in the Canadian Arctic: New Evidence from the Saunaktuk Site (NgTn-1) (1994), pp.57–77. Read scope: context p.58; returned methods and results text within pp.59–73, with gaps; discussion pp.73–75. Text extraction only. Page images, figures and original excavation and oral records remain unchecked.

Link to this entry

Reported displacement before Malwa occupation at Daimabad

Place and era: Daimabad, Maharashtra, India. Sali places Malwa arrival around 1600 BCE. That is not a verified date for the claimed forced departure.
What the evidence supports: Sali suggests that Malwa arrivals first shared the site with earlier residents, then forced them out. He bases this account on an overlap of remains.
What remains unknown: The link between these remains and forced departure needs further study. The phase names do not by themselves identify separate peoples.
What is needed next: Check the overlap and the claim of shared residence. Look for evidence of how the earlier residents lost their homes.

S. A. Sali, Daimabad 1976–79, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India 83 (1986), printed p. 28; structural limits pp. 92–93.

Link to this entry

Reported loss of homes at Daimabad

Place and era: Daimabad, Maharashtra, India. The report places this change between the Savalda and Late Harappan phases. The date of the claimed departure is unresolved.
What the evidence supports: Sali says Late Harappan arrivals forced out earlier residents and replaced their village. The report describes later deposits above the earlier settlement.
What remains unknown: The evidence behind the forced departure needs further study. A change in pottery does not by itself show that another group took the site.
What is needed next: Check the layers, homes and dates behind the claim. Look for evidence of what happened to the earlier residents.

S. A. Sali, Daimabad 1976–79, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India 83 (1986), printed pp. 23–25; structural limits pp. 88, 92–93.

Link to this entry

Reviews of rent-free land grants

Place and era: Chittagong; hearings from 1819 to 1848
What the evidence supports: Company officials reviewed land grants and sought to reclaim those they judged invalid. Eaton describes these hearings as the reason many grant records survived.
What remains unknown: This passage does not identify which rejected holders lost rights or whether people had to leave.
What is needed next: Trace specific rejected grants and what happened to their holders.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 9, notes 32.

Link to this entry

Revolt and reconquest in Kamrup

Place and era: Rangamati and Gilah, in 1614.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that rebels overpowered Rangamati and besieged Gilah. Mughal forces then recovered the sites. The revolt followed the new tax and service system.
What remains unknown: The account does not show that all local people fled. This recovery does not prove permanent control of the region.
What is needed next: Keep this change of control distinct from the defeat of Sanatan in 1615.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 7, section s1.7.6, notes 87, 88.

Link to this entry

Ridges Basin: a death in a burned house

Place and era: Ridges Basin, Colorado, site 5LP237, in the early Pueblo I regional study. The event date is unresolved.
What the evidence supports: Potter reports a possible killing and house burning associated with Burial 137.
What remains unknown: Burial followed by ritual burning remains possible. A separate pit deposit is not established as part of the same event.
What is needed next: Read the site report to distinguish the deposits and establish what ended use of the house.

James M. Potter, The Community, Animas–La Plata Project, Volume XVI: Final Synthetic Report, chapter 13 (2010), pp. 255.

Link to this entry

Royal and military retreats in Sikkim

Place and era: Sikkim and nearby areas. Hamilton describes events from 1788 to 1809. He casts doubt on some dates and claims.
What the evidence supports: Hamilton describes retreats by rulers and troops, relief of a siege and a later royal return. He also reports changes in political control.
What remains unknown: These moves do not by themselves prove that local families lost their homes. The account does not show one continuous flight by civilians.
What is needed next: Examine each retreat separately. Ask whether local families or the royal household lost their homes.

Francis Buchanan Hamilton, An Account of the Kingdom of Nepal (1819). Hamilton1819 Country of Sikim printed120–124; settlement/geographic context118–119,124–128. HTML transcription with print anchors; no scanned-page verification. Informant account, not an eyewitness claim about flight.

Link to this entry

Rule in the Oconee valley

Place and era: The Oconee River in Georgia, in the mid-sixteenth century.
What the evidence supports: Hally cites Spanish accounts of chiefdoms on the Oconee River under one chief. He treats rule by a senior chief as probable.
What remains unknown: The chapter does not show how this rule began or what changed for local land use. The extent of direct control remains unclear.
What is needed next: Check the cited accounts for how control changed and what it meant for the land.

Hally (1993), The Territorial Size of Mississippian Chiefdoms, pp. 163–164.

Link to this entry

Tax pressure and departure from Cossimbazar

Place and era: Cossimbazar, in the context of the tax imposed in 1679 and its later enforcement in Bengal.
What the evidence supports: A note by Eaton reports forced tax demands on Hindu silk workers. It says the disruption drove the "little people" of the city into the interior.
What remains unknown: The people who left are not shown to be the same group as the silk workers. Early 1681 dates tax collection in Dhaka, not every departure from Cossimbazar. The number and routes are unknown.
What is needed next: Keep the two towns distinct. Retain the reported forced departure without an invented exact date or a new land claim at the destination.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 7, section s1.7.3, notes 58.

Link to this entry

The Bhanja rulers lose land and move to Ganjam

Place and era: Upper Orissa and Ganjam, eastern India, probably in the late tenth century. The date is uncertain.
What the evidence supports: Sircar reads the land grants as evidence that the Bhanja rulers lost territory and were driven to Ganjam.
What remains unknown: The grants do not directly describe the move. Its date and full extent are unclear. The account does not show that other residents were expelled.
What is needed next: Check how the cited grants support the loss of territory and the move. Keep the rulers distinct from other residents.

Dines Chandra Sircar, The Bhañjas of Khiñjali-Maṇḍala, Indian Historical Quarterly 28(3) (1952), pp. 225–231; placing discussion pp. 225–229, especially 227.

Link to this entry

The capture of Chittagong

Place and era: Chittagong; reported in 1666
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Mughal forces took the citadel after a siege. They then made the city a district centre under Mughal rule.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish whether residents were removed or which private land rights changed.
What is needed next: Trace the effects on residents and earlier landholders.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 9, notes 27, 28.

Link to this entry

The defeat of Sanatan and flight

Place and era: Dhamdhama in Kamrup, in 1615.
What the evidence supports: Eaton reports that Sanatan led armed resistance to Mughal rule. His demands included tax changes and the withdrawal of troops. Mughal forces destroyed the stockades and forced him to flee.
What remains unknown: Eaton presents Sanatan as a probable paik leader. His flight does not show that all his supporters left. The account does not give their share of the local population.
What is needed next: Keep the forced flight and loss of the defended place visible. Do not infer a route for all the people who took part.

Eaton (1993 archive context), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 7, section s1.7.6, notes 87, 89, 90, 91.

Link to this entry

The rise of landlords at Fatulla

Place and era: Dhaka; a 1912 survey recalls arrival in the reign of Jahangir.
What the evidence supports: The account says descendants of Shah Fateh Allah became landlords and remained so into the twentieth century.
What remains unknown: The source does not say when or how they gained control.
What is needed next: Trace the change in land rights and the people it affected.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, note 96.

Link to this entry

The sack of Anuradhapura under Sena I

Place and era: Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka, during Sena I's reign in the ninth century. Exact dates remain uncertain.
What the evidence supports: Codrington reports a Pandyan attack and sack. He then records peace and the king's return.
What remains unknown: The effects on other residents are unclear. The later move to Polonnaruwa is not shown to be forced. The author doubts the story of stolen relics.
What is needed next: Assess the attack and loss of control separately from the king's later change of residence.

H. W. Codrington, A Short History of Ceylon, chapter III, Sena I (web transcription).

Link to this entry

The settlement tradition at Kazi Abad

Place and era: Barahanuddin, Bakarganj; recorded in surveys from 1902–1913. The settlement date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: A survey says the settlement took its name from a kazi who settled there first.
What remains unknown: That claim does not show that earlier people had no use of, or rights to, the land.
What is needed next: Check the settlement history and earlier land rights.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, note 90.

Link to this entry

The settlement tradition at Pail

Place and era: Sylhet; an undated tradition recorded in 1982.
What the evidence supports: A tradition recalls a teacher of rice farming and Islam. His sons later settled in Comilla and Sylhet and taught there too.
What remains unknown: The account does not say the sons founded new settlements or forced anyone to move.
What is needed next: Trace earlier land use and the settlements named in the tradition.

Eaton (1993), The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, chapter 8, note 43.

Link to this entry

The Upper Ohio dispersal question

Place and era: Southwestern Pennsylvania and nearby areas. The question concerns villages often dated from about 1050 to 1635. That range does not date a move.
What the evidence supports: Hart and Means call for tests of the view that local communities left by 1635. They say the date lacks independent support. They also call for tests of the proposed roles of Seneca attacks and drought.
What remains unknown: It is not clear which communities left, when they left, or where they went. The source does not establish an attack, forced movement or the loss of homes. The shared archaeological label does not establish one people.
What is needed next: Read the earlier site and dispersal studies. Test each place and departure on its own. Keep drought, conflict and other causes open.

John P. Hart and Bernard K. Means, The Monongahela tradition in “real time”: Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates (2022), PLOS ONE 17(10): e0276014, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0276014. Conclusions, paragraph beginning Contemporary practice calls for multiple radiocarbon measures; proposed1635 dispersal and causes expressly require testing.

Link to this entry

Ustanali and Etowah towns attacked in 1793

Place and era: Ustanali and the historical town of Etowah, 1793.
What the evidence supports: Smith reports that Sevier burned Ustanali and destroyed Etowah town. Ustanali was later rebuilt.
What remains unknown: Etowah’s exact site is uncertain here. This is the historical town, not the medieval mound center. Permanent abandonment is not established.
What is needed next: Trace the loss of residence at both towns. Keep rebuilding and the separate 1782 attack visible.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, p. 38.

Link to this entry

Ustanali destroyed in 1782

Place and era: Ustanali, 1782, with later residence.
What the evidence supports: Smith reports the town’s destruction. Later residence and its role as a capital show that the account does not end with the attack.
What remains unknown: Permanent exile is not established. The actor in the separate 1793 attack cannot be assigned to this event.
What is needed next: Keep this destruction distinct from the 1793 attack. Trace the loss in place and later residence.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, p. 38.

Link to this entry

War pressure and defended villages in central Illinois

Place and era: Central Illinois River Valley, in the early 1200s and after. A later study revises the earlier phase dates.
What the evidence supports: Wilson links warfare to a shift from scattered homes to compact villages with walls. He also describes limits on access to fields and other food sources. The later study supports war-related settlement change.
What remains unknown: The accounts do not name all earlier homes or define one displaced people. The regional process is not one village attack. Revised phase dates do not give the date of each fire.
What is needed next: Define the place, period and households for this settlement change. Keep it distinct from each village fire and from later regional departure.

Greg D. Wilson, Incinerated Villages in the North (2015), printed pp. 102, 103. Original author-hosted chapter; full eight-page text layer and selected published images read. Underlying excavation reports not independently read.
Gregory D. Wilson, Mallory A. Melton, Amber M. VanDerwarker, Reassessing the chronology of the Mississippian Central Illinois River Valley using Bayesian analysis (2017), ahead-of-print physical pp. 4, 14. Consulted author-archived ahead-of-print version; physical pages1–4 and13–15 read. No full model audit or crosswalk to2018issue22–38. Overlapping author, not independent attack confirmation.

Link to this entry

Westo defeat and refuge

Place and era: Savannah valley and Chattahoochee communities, 1680–1683.
What the evidence supports: Smith reports that Carolinian forces and Savannah allies defeated the Westo. Westo refugees moved to communities on the Chattahoochee.
What remains unknown: The Westo town site is uncertain. The loss of a separate group identity does not mean that all its people died.
What is needed next: Trace the loss of residence and the places of refuge. Keep survival distinct from loss of a group name.

Smith (1992), Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia, pp. 28, 32, 33.

Link to this entry

Anbil charter: loss of tenant rights

Place and era: A tract in the Chola realm. The charter gives the fourth year of the king. The modern grant site and calendar date remain unknown. Anbil was the findspot and the home of Aniruddha.
What the evidence supports: The edition gives one charter in two languages. It reports a grant of 10 velis from Nanmulankudi to Aniruddha. It reports local acts to mark the bounds and record the grant. Rao translates its terms as eviction of the old tenants. Those terms give their land rights to Aniruddha.
What remains unknown: We do not know how anyone enforced the terms or if the tenants left their homes. Their identities and later homes remain unknown.
What is needed next: Examine sources about the prior tenants and any other loss of land rights they faced. Keep both population history questions open.

T. A. Gopinatha Rao, Anbil Plates of Sundara-Chola: The 4th Year, Epigraphia Indica XV (volume coverage 1919–20; imprint date unverified), pp. 44–72. Sanskrit translation verses 38–43, printed p.70; Tamil translation lines 123–136 and 136–173, printed pp.70–72, especially the old-tenants clause on p.72; lines 173–183, printed p.72. Editor discussion pp.55–57; opening p.44. One bilingual charter and its primary edition, consulted in the saved bounded opening/discussion/English-translation windows. Sanskrit and Tamil portions, editorial summary and signatories do not supply independent witness counts. Volume coverage 1919–20 is not a separately verified imprint date. Original scripts, plate/page images, lexical translation and exact modern legal bundle remain unchecked; OCR and editorial interpretations remain.

Link to this entry

The Neulpur grant and prior land rights

Place and era: Two villages in Northern Tosali, in the eighth year of Subhakara. The calendar date remains unknown.
What the evidence supports: The charter joins two named villages under one name. It grants both villages tax-free to Brahman donees. It asks officials to preserve the gift.
What remains unknown: The charter does not state whether earlier residents lost homes or land rights. The edition gives two different totals for the donees. Neither total counts displaced people.
What is needed next: Examine earlier rights in both villages and what changed under the grant. Keep the origins of the residents unresolved.

R. D. Banerji, Neulpur Grant of Subhakara: The 8th Year, Epigraphia Indica XV (imprint date unverified). editor grant summary; English translation lines 1–30 and date clause. English charter translation and editor grant summary.

Link to this entry

The Atukuru temple grant and earlier rights

Place and era: The village of Atukuru in Kam nadu. The gift was for the coronation of Virupaksha. Its exact date remains unknown.
What the evidence supports: The English abstract reports a gift of the village to the god Mallikarjuna. Sri Lingachakresvara received the gift for the god. The grant gave the village a new name. It set out its bounds and rights to income.
What remains unknown: The text does not state whether prior holders lost rights or residents lost homes. We do not know how the recipients used each grant right.
What is needed next: Examine prior rights and any adverse change under the grant. Do not infer that the recipients moved into the village.

T. A. Gopinatha Rao, Srisailam Plates of Virupaksha: Saka-Samvat 1388, Epigraphia Indica XV (imprint date unverified). immediate grant summary, boundary section and engraver; verses 22–40 and lines 68–77. English abstract of the charter and editor grant summary.

Link to this entry

Loss and recovery of Adoni fort

Place and era: Adoni fort, also called Adhavani. The account places the acts in the reign of Harihara II. Exact dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Rao reports that forces called Musalmans or Turushkas seized the fort and held it. He reports that Channappa Odeya then recaptured it and restored it to Harihara II.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish civilian eviction or deaths. It quotes earlier inscriptions that this research did not consult directly. The effects on residents remain unknown.
What is needed next: Examine control of the fort before and after each capture. Keep the loss and recovery distinct, with the roles at each stage.

T. A. Gopinatha Rao, Srisailam Plates of Virupaksha: Saka-Samvat 1388, Epigraphia Indica XV (imprint date unverified). paragraph beginning The second important event is the taking of the fort at Adhavani, with embedded inscription excerpts. Editor historical discussion with earlier citations; not the operative Srisailam grant.

Link to this entry

People carried off as prisoners

Place and era: The places where the prisoners lived remain unknown. The earlier edition and the later account disagree on the date.
What the evidence supports: The English text says that Boleya Mummeya Nayaka killed people and took prisoners away. It says Tirika-gauda broke the hostile force, then died. Rao later quotes this record.
What remains unknown: The homes, identities and later fate of the prisoners remain unknown. The reported battle does not establish their release or the final result of the campaign.
What is needed next: Examine the captive removal and retain the date conflict. Do not treat allied villages as captive homes.

T. A. Gopinatha Rao, Srisailam Plates of Virupaksha: Saka-Samvat 1388, Epigraphia Indica XV (imprint date unverified). paragraph beginning One hitherto unnoticed incident, explicitly quoting Epigraphia Carnatica No.29, Nagar Taluka, Shimoga District. Editor historical discussion with earlier citations; not the operative Srisailam grant.
B. Lewis Rice, Epigraphia Carnatica, VIII, Shimoga District Part II (1904). Nagar No. 29, English translation, printed pp. 131–132; Roman text p. 246 for heading, date and names; first corrigenda page for p. 246 lines 14 and 18. Newly consulted full English No29 and relevant primary-edition page images; same inscription route as Rao’s quotation.

Link to this entry

Kampana and reported loss at two places

Place and era: The reports name places near Srirangam and at Madura. Rao calls the first place Samayavaram or Kannanur. Exact dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Rao reports that Kampana destroyed Musalman settlements at both places. This claim appears in his historical discussion, not in the terms of the Srisailam grant.
What remains unknown: The source trail for each claim remains unclear. A nearby quote concerns control of another tract. It does not prove loss at both places.
What is needed next: Trace the evidence for each place on its own. Establish whether the two reports concern one act or separate acts.

T. A. Gopinatha Rao, Srisailam Plates of Virupaksha: Saka-Samvat 1388, Epigraphia Indica XV (imprint date unverified). Bukka I campaign paragraph beginning The reign of Bukka I is the most eventful. Editor historical discussion with earlier citations; not the operative Srisailam grant.

Link to this entry

The fight for Rangini

Place and era: Rangini, during the reign of Harihara II. The exact battle date remains unresolved.
What the evidence supports: Rao cites a record of Chennaya Nayaka, who died from wounds in a fight to take Rangini from Turushkas. He also uses a title of praise for another chief.
What remains unknown: The death from wounds does not prove that the place fell. The result and exact battle date remain uncertain. The effects on residents' homes remain unknown.
What is needed next: Examine whether control of the place changed and what happened to its residents. Keep the inferred result separate from the reported death.

T. A. Gopinatha Rao, Srisailam Plates of Virupaksha: Saka-Samvat 1388, Epigraphia Indica XV (imprint date unverified). fourth event of Harihara II’s reign. Editor historical discussion with earlier citations; not the operative Srisailam grant.

Link to this entry

A reported revolt and plunder

Place and era: The account names Konkanika and Kadambapura. It places the acts in the reign of Harihara II. Exact places and dates remain unclear.
What the evidence supports: Rao reads titles of praise as signs of revolt and plunder. He links these acts to Bachappa Odeya. He also proposes later protection and submission.
What remains unknown: These claims do not establish town destruction or eviction. We do not know who lost homes or land, or how long any loss of control lasted.
What is needed next: Examine the cited titles and evidence for each claimed act. Keep the proposed plunder, protection and submission distinct.

T. A. Gopinatha Rao, Srisailam Plates of Virupaksha: Saka-Samvat 1388, Epigraphia Indica XV (imprint date unverified). first political event of Harihara II’s reign. Editor historical discussion with earlier citations; not the operative Srisailam grant.

Link to this entry

A village grant by Somadeva

Place and era: A grant to monks at the Karle caves. The unnamed village site and exact date remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Senart translates inscription 14 as a village grant by Somadeva. He reads its terms as rights to taxes and other income.
What remains unknown: The terms for these rights are disputed. The text does not show whose prior rights changed or whether the grant took effect. The residents and any moves remain unknown.
What is needed next: Find whether the grant changed prior rights to the village. Keep the cave site separate from the village site.

E. Senart, The Inscriptions in the Caves at Karle, Epigraphia Indica VII, no. 7, inscription 14. English web text.

Link to this entry

Settlement gaps in the Tradewater drainage

Place and era: Northwestern Kentucky. Middle and Late Woodland periods. Exact dates remain unresolved.
What the evidence supports: The survey reports an apparent break in occupation, followed by later occupation. It draws this pattern from a sample of sites.
What remains unknown: The survey does not show why this pattern arose, who left, or whether anyone was forced from a home.
What is needed next: This is a research lead. Establish a bounded process and loss of residence before this becomes an atlas case.

Ann I. Ottesen, Woodland Settlement Patterns in Northwestern Kentucky (1985), pp.166–186, especially p.182. Kentucky Heritage Council.

Link to this entry

Karajika and Karajaka: grants of land to monks

Place and era: Karajika and Karajaka are the village names in these grants. Exact sites and dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: Senart reads village grants to monks in inscriptions 13 and 19. He treats the later royal order as a renewal, with rights and exemptions.
What remains unknown: Senart thinks both names refer to one village. The web text has gaps, and some rights are unclear. Corrected verbs give orders, not proof of action. Prior rights and their loss remain unknown, as do the residents and any moves.
What is needed next: Find whether anyone lost rights to the land. Establish whether the orders took effect.

E. Senart, The Inscriptions in the Caves at Karle, Epigraphia Indica VII, no. 7, inscriptions 13 and 19. English web text.

Link to this entry

Otomi loss of land near Xilotepec

Place and era: Central Mexico, near Xilotepec, Tula and the Toluca valley. The source places this before Spanish rule but gives no date for the land loss.
What the evidence supports: Levin Rojo reports that Nahua groups moved into the region. She says they displaced Otomi people from its better lands.
What remains unknown: The source does not name the affected communities or their tracts. How people lost the land and where they went remain unclear.
What is needed next: Define which communities and lands this report covers. Ask how those communities formed and what other loss of land they faced.

Levin Rojo on land loss, paragraph 2.

Link to this entry

Otomi flight from Spanish rule

Place and era: From Xilotepec to La Canada, near Queretaro. The account puts the move after 1521. Its exact date is unknown.
What the evidence supports: Levin Rojo reports that Conin led thirty Otomi families from Xilotepec to La Canada to seek refuge. She links the departure to pressure from Spanish rule. The families gained host permission to settle in return for crop tribute. The account says the hosts kept their lands and some rights.
What remains unknown: The accounts about Conin differ. The cited text from 1582 and later traditions need comparison. The date, the fate of each family and any return remain unknown.
What is needed next: Set this flight within the wider Spanish conquest. Keep the flight, the right to settle and later roles apart.

Levin Rojo, paragraphs 5 and 6. Limits in paragraphs 7 and 9.

Link to this entry

New settlers in western Maryland?

Place and era: Western Maryland and the upper Potomac. The 1991 study places an expansion around 900 CE. This is not a dated removal.
What the evidence supports: Curry and Kavanagh describe changes in pottery and later use of these sites. They favor the arrival of new settlers over change within the older groups. They link this to the Monongahela tradition. Some site deposits and dates overlap.
What remains unknown: The source does not show how earlier land use ended. A new pottery type does not by itself prove a new people or forced movement. The affected group and land outcome remain unclear.
What is needed next: Check each site sequence on its own. Ask what changed for earlier users of the land, as well as who later lived there.

Dennis C. Curry and Maureen Kavanagh, The Middle to Late Woodland Transition in Maryland, North American Archaeologist 12(1) (1991), pp. 5–9,22–23 (indexed text; original figures unverified).

Link to this entry

Earlier quarry users and new villages in Maryland

Place and era: Blue Ridge and Monocacy Valley, Maryland. The 1991 study places new villages around 900 to 1000 CE. That range does not date a loss of land.
What the evidence supports: Earlier groups gathered stone and hunted in the area. Curry and Kavanagh suggest a possible loss of access as new settlers arrived. Stewart finds signs that some inland groups still gathered the stone. This does not show whether coastal users kept access.
What remains unknown: It is not clear whether earlier users lost access to the land. Changes in pottery and stone tools alone do not identify a people or prove force. The proposed link between new villages and lost access remains uncertain.
What is needed next: Check the site records for a loss of access by earlier users. Compare this with continued use and changes in how people gathered stone.

Dennis C. Curry and Maureen Kavanagh, The Middle to Late Woodland Transition in Maryland, North American Archaeologist 12(1) (1991), pp. 15–16,21–24 (indexed text; original figures unverified).
R. Michael Stewart, Rhyolite Quarry and Quarry-Related Sites in Maryland and Pennsylvania, Archaeology of Eastern North America 15 (1987), pp. 51–55 (original article; full text and stated images read).

Link to this entry

People held on the Assaballa vessel

Place and era: A vessel at the White Nile camp. Baker gives June 25 for its arrival. The camp sequence supplies the 1870 context. This does not date the original capture.
What the evidence supports: Baker reports 35 captives aboard a vessel owned by Assaballa. He says the vessel came from Bahr Gazal. He reports their release. This was a separate transport from the Kutchuk Ali vessel.
What remains unknown: The reported origin of the vessel does not identify their homes. Their capture dates and later return remain unknown. The Pongo musicians do not identify this group. The two vessel counts do not give a regional total.
What is needed next: Look for records of these captives' earlier homes and later lives. Keep them apart from the Kutchuk Ali group and the Pongo musicians.

Baker, expedition account. Chapter IV. On June 17 through the June 25 vessels and the immediately following Pongo-musicians paragraph. Chapter V first dated entry and start of chapter VI supply 1870 camp context only.

Link to this entry

Flight and home return of Quat Kare

Place and era: Baker wrote about Quat Kare in the White Nile region. His expedition supplies the 1870 context. The flight and return dates are not given.
What the evidence supports: Baker relays a report of an attempted capture and calls Quat Kare a fugitive. He says the king and governor went to their own homes. He reports peace and the later return of Quat Kare to office. An undated note reports his later imprisonment and death.
What remains unknown: Loss of office does not by itself show loss of home. This unit concerns the reported flight. Return does not prove restored cattle, freed captives or future safety. Dates and the duration of flight remain unknown.
What is needed next: Trace the flight, home return and later loss in the linked accounts. Keep residence apart from claims about office and followers.

Baker, expedition account. Chapter IV; start of VI. Opening audience with the wife account; governor/king dialogue; following home-return paragraph; footnote on later imprisonment/death. Start of chapter VI: peace and reinstatement. Camp sequence supports 1870 context only; no flight/return dates inferred.

Link to this entry

Khyang evictions for forest reserves

Place and era: Chittagong Hill Tracts in Bangladesh. The 2000 report describes evictions over the previous three or four years. These are not exact event dates.
What the evidence supports: The CHT Commission says the government declared forest reserves. It reports the eviction of about 2,000 people from their land. Most were Khyang. It says they received no compensation.
What remains unknown: The exact households and land boundaries remain unclear. Their overlap with other cases is unknown. The passage gives no exact event dates. Future plans are separate.
What is needed next: Check the affected places and how the reserve programme took effect. Trace earlier and later use of this land. Do not assume the same households appear in other cases.

CHT Commission, Life Is Not Ours, Update 4 (2000), Chapter 5, page 38. Map on page 40 supplies regional context.

Link to this entry

A house fire at Durango South

Place and era: Durango, southwestern Colorado. The report gives a roof construction estimate in the 700s. This does not date the fire.
What the evidence supports: The report describes a house that was in use when it burned. Its authors link the fire to loss of the home. They also report later storage use in the remains.
What remains unknown: The cause of the fire and any human role remain unknown. These chapters do not establish an attack or forced removal. The residents, their fates and later land rights remain unclear.
What is needed next: Check what caused the fire and how it ended use of this home. Keep later reuse and the other buildings separate.

John D. Gooding (ed.), The Durango South Project (1980). Chapter II, pages 13-44; Chapter VI, pages 177-184. University of Arizona Press.

Link to this entry

Captives held on the Kutchuk Ali vessel

Place and era: The account describes a vessel at the White Nile camp. Baker gives May 10 for the interception. The camp sequence supplies the 1870 context, not a date for the original capture.
What the evidence supports: Baker reports 150 captives on a vessel owned by Kutchuk Ali. Some were in irons. He describes their release, papers of freedom and new household placements.
What remains unknown: This is a count of people on one vessel. It is not a regional total. Their home villages, capture dates and actual return remain unknown. Release does not prove full freedom after placement.
What is needed next: Find records of the homes these captives left. Compare their release and placements with signs of return or continued force.

Baker, expedition account. Chapter IV. Paragraph beginning On the 10th May through the liberated-captive and Mostoora discussion. Chapter V first dated entry and start of chapter VI supply 1870 camp context, not capture dates.

Link to this entry

Former Dinka homes on the east bank near Tewfikeeyah

Place and era: East bank near Tewfikeeyah in the White Nile region. Baker describes the bank in his 1870 camp account. This does not date the raids.
What the evidence supports: Baker saw pot fragments and traces of old villages on the east bank. He said Dinka people once lived there. He blamed slave raids by Fashoda governors and their Baggara allies for the loss. People still lived and traded on the west bank.
What remains unknown: The ruins do not prove the cause that Baker gives. The dates, full extent and fate of the former residents remain unknown. These claims come from one account.
What is needed next: Trace the former villages and their residents in the linked records. Compare evidence of raids with other causes of loss and signs of return.

Baker, expedition account. Chapter IV. Paragraphs beginning Although this country was exceedingly rich in soil and I frequently rode on horseback; later east-bank Dinka-country sentence. Chapter V first dated entry and start of chapter VI supply 1870 camp chronology, not raid dates.

Link to this entry

Homes and group ties at Chesterfield.

Place and era: Chesterfield Inlet. The report gives no date for these group ties.
What the evidence supports: Rasmussen calls these residents Igluligârjungmiut. He describes a mix of the groups named in his report. Some came from Baker Lake and the Kazan River. He does not call them a separate tribe. Worster made the English text from Danish.
What remains unknown: The phases and links between these groups are not clear. Shared homes do not prove land title. The report gives no forced move or cause.
What is needed next: Trace each named place and group. Assess the home ties and land rights. Seek evidence for any forced change.

Link to this entry

Land gifts of Bhanuvarma and Pandara

Place and era: Kardamapati at Palasika. Fleet puts these charters near the fifth century CE. Exact years stay unknown.
What the evidence supports: Fleet reports a gift by Bhanuvarma and an act by Pandara. One clause assigns fifteen nivartanas of land. It frees that land from a stated tax and other burdens.
What remains unknown: The relation between the clauses is unclear. Earlier rights and the effects on prior land users remain open.
What is needed next: Check how the two acts relate. Trace any change in land rights or use.

J. F. Fleet, “Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions,” The Indian Antiquary VI (January 1877), No. XXIII, printed pp. 27, 28, 29 (physical PDF pp. 43, 44, 47).

Link to this entry

Two sites: Cedarland and Claiborne.

Place and era: These early sites are near the Pearl River estuary. The people and dates of any move remain unclear.
What the evidence supports: The report describes nearby sites used one after the other. Similar layouts and objects raise a question about whether the same people moved.
What remains unknown: The same population is not established. Similar activities and changes in the estuary can explain the pattern. No forced move is shown.
What is needed next: Compare the two sites. Do not assume that the same people lived at both.

Marvin D. Jeter and G. Ishmael Williams, Jr., Chapter 5 in Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Trans-Mississippi South in Arkansas and Louisiana (Arkansas Archeological Survey, 1989), printed pp. 101, 109 (physical PDF pp. 113, 121).

Link to this entry

Possible moves from lowlands to the Ozarks.

Place and era: The report compares early lowland and Ozark upland use. The dates of any move are not set.
What the evidence supports: One model shifts permanent homes from the lowlands to Ozark uplands. It retains some lowland use and later renewed settlement.
What remains unknown: Forced departure and a full break in use are not established. Climate, hidden sites and missed artifact types remain possible explanations.
What is needed next: Ask if people left the lowlands. Look for continued use and sites that surveys can miss.

Link to this entry

Early use at Johnny Ford.

Place and era: The report describes an early level at Johnny Ford by the Red River. No forced move is established.
What the evidence supports: The report describes an early level within the Fourche Maline sequence. It finds links with Poverty Point material.
What remains unknown: A culture name does not prove a new people or forced replacement. The main occupation and cemetery belong to a later level.
What is needed next: Keep the early level apart from later use and burials.

Link to this entry

The decline of Poverty Point.

Place and era: The report describes a late stage at Poverty Point in Louisiana. It does not establish a removal.
What the evidence supports: The report describes an end to major construction, less occupied space and weaker trade. It also describes later cultural change.
What remains unknown: No forced loss or replacement of the people is established. The report rejects the old Hopewellian invasion claim because its dates do not fit.
What is needed next: Separate changes in construction and trade from any proved change in access or residence.

Link to this entry

Saglermiut loss and new homes on Southampton.

Place and era: Southampton Island, also called Sagleq. The report puts the new homes early in the 20th century. This does not date the prior loss.
What the evidence supports: Rasmussen says most new residents came from the Aivilingmiut. Some came from the Iglulingmiut. He says the Saglermiut died out before this. He links the new homes to good hunts. Worster made the English text from Danish.
What remains unknown: The cause and scale of the claimed loss are not clear. The new homes do not explain the prior loss. Counts and land rights stay unknown.
What is needed next: Study the prior loss and the new homes as separate steps. Keep their link open. Do not treat the new residents as the cause of the loss.

Link to this entry

Netsilingmiut homes and names.

Place and era: The book names sites from Lyon Inlet to Chesterfield Inlet. It says people lived there for generations. It gives no set date.
What the evidence supports: Rasmussen says the name Netsilingmiut first meant people near a lake. The name then spread to more people in the eastern Northwest Passage. He reports homes at many sites over generations. Worster made the English text from Danish.
What remains unknown: The name does not prove one fixed group. The report gives no forced move or cause. It does not settle past land rights.
What is needed next: Trace the people and the name as two linked histories. Assess any forced loss of homes or land on its own evidence.

Link to this entry

New groups and Tchefuncte residents

Place and era: The Lower Mississippi Valley. The report places this discussion in 100 B.C.-A.D. 400. It gives no settled dates for the proposed arrivals.
What the evidence supports: The report describes a view about new Hopewellian arrivals. In this view, they kept some activities apart from Tchefuncte residents. The report also describes local ways of life that continued.
What remains unknown: It is unclear what changed for residents' homes, land use, access or control. New people, shared ideas and local change remain possible readings.
What is needed next: Read the cited argument about new arrivals. Trace what changed for residents. Compare movement, shared ideas and local change.

Marvin D. Jeter and G. Ishmael Williams, Jr., Chapter 6 in Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Trans-Mississippi South in Arkansas and Louisiana (Arkansas Archeological Survey, 1989), printed pp. 138 (physical PDF pp. 150).

Link to this entry

The seizure of the island Revati.

Place and era: The book names Revati. The exact site and date are not set.
What the evidence supports: The book says Mangalesa seized Revati. The English verse says he aimed to take it. His army climbed the ramparts. The verse does not state a completed seizure.
What remains unknown: The earlier ruler and effects on land users are not clear. The book puts Swamiraja there as a guess.
What is needed next: Keep these two source claims distinct. Do not treat seizure as proof that people had to leave.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 112, 113 (physical PDF pp. 116, 117).
Dániel Balogh (ed.), DHARMA, Aihole temple foundation of Ravikīrti of the time of Pulakeśin II, DHARMA_INSBadamiCalukya00005.xml; reproduced English translation credited to Kielhorn1900–1901 (bib:Kielhorn1900-1901_01), stanza13; pinned commit d6495b08e22bfb256de11ef4c9277cda37f168fe. Digital English/editorial scope accepted; original printed articles, independent Sanskrit and full French reading not claimed.

Link to this entry

A field gift at Khetagrama

Place and era: Badovara-kshetra in Khetagrama. Fleet puts these charters near the fifth century CE. Exact years stay unknown.
What the evidence supports: Fleet reports a field gift from Kakusthavarma to General Srutakirtti. The text links it to a rescue. It also calls the village Arhat property.
What remains unknown: The roles in the rescue are unclear. Earlier users, rights and the effects of the gift remain open.
What is needed next: Trace the field rights and prior users. Check whether the gift caused a loss of rights or use.

J. F. Fleet, “Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions,” The Indian Antiquary VI (January 1877), No. XX, printed pp. 23, 24 (physical PDF pp. 33, 34).

Link to this entry

Pishtapura: a reported capture.

Place and era: The book names Pishtapura. The event date and the full bounds remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: The book says Pulakesin II seized the citadel. The verse translation describes pressure that made the fortress accessible. Both texts draw on the same inscription.
What remains unknown: The verse does not state occupation or lasting rule. An editor notes unclear letters. The residents' fate remains unknown.
What is needed next: Keep both accounts distinct. Assess the city claim and the kingdom claim without a double count.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 113, 114 (physical PDF pp. 117, 118).
F. Kielhorn, Aihole inscription, English verse 27 as reproduced in DHARMA, edited by Daniel Balogh, with apparatus APP21 (pinned digital edition commit d6495b08e22bfb256de11ef4c9277cda37f168fe). Complete English/editorial scope accepted; no original printed article, independent Sanskrit or material authentication claimed.

Link to this entry

Ravi and rule at Palasika

Place and era: Palasika. Fleet puts these charters near the fifth century CE. Exact years stay unknown.
What the evidence supports: Fleet translates a claim that Ravi set up his rule at Palasika. The text also says he killed rival kings and overthrew Chandadanda.
What remains unknown: The earlier ruler at this site is not clear. The acts do not all have known sites or links. Their effects on other land users are unknown.
What is needed next: Assess the reported change in control. Check how the acts relate. Keep the extent of loss open.

J. F. Fleet, “Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions,” The Indian Antiquary VI (January 1877), Nos. XXIV and XXVI, printed pp. 30, 32 (physical PDF pp. 48, 52).
G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed p. 102 (physical PDF p. 106); derivative interpretation.

Link to this entry

Vasuntavataka: a village gift

Place and era: The source puts the village in Suddikundura. Fleet puts these charters near the fifth century CE. Exact years stay unknown.
What the evidence supports: Fleet reports that Harivarma gave the village to a named sect, free from claims. The stated plan funds temple rites first. The rest is for food for the sect.
What remains unknown: Earlier rights and effects on users remain open. The source gives different names for the village, temple site and place of issue.
What is needed next: Trace village rights and the effects of the grant. Keep the named people and sites apart unless a source links them.

J. F. Fleet, “Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions,” The Indian Antiquary VI (January 1877), No. XXV, printed pp. 30, 31 (physical PDF pp. 48, 51).

Link to this entry

Possible moves from the Plains.

Place and era: The report discusses early sites in Arkansas and Louisiana. It does not date a known move.
What the evidence supports: The report proposes arrivals or wider ranges for hunters from the Plains. It links this idea to Scottsbluff and Eden points.
What remains unknown: A migrant group and forced loss are not established. The finds can also reflect trade or visits to western stone sources.
What is needed next: Use site finds to compare moves, wider ranges for hunters, trade and local travel.

Link to this entry

The land grant recorded on the Birur plates.

Place and era: The record names Sindhuthaya. Rice suggests a date near 450 CE, but the date and place are not secure.
What the evidence supports: The plates record a village and other land given to Brahmans, with a king's leave. They set out shares and terms to protect the gift.
What remains unknown: The record does not name earlier users or state how the gift changed their rights. The donor's link to other kings is not clear.
What is needed next: Assess the change in land control. Examine the date, place and links to kings in other records.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed p. 101 (physical PDF p. 105).
B. Lewis Rice, Epigraphia Carnatica VI (1901), Kadur 162: English translation p.33/PDF359; transcription p.91/PDF153; introduction pp.3–5/PDF21–23.

Link to this entry

The death of Swamiraja.

Place and era: The book names Swamiraja. The site and date of his death are not set.
What the evidence supports: The book says Mangalesa killed a king. It names the king as Swamiraja.
What remains unknown: The link to Revati in the book is not firm. The death does not by itself prove a loss of land.
What is needed next: Assess the death and any land outcome. Keep it apart from flight and seizure.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 112, 113 (physical PDF pp. 116, 117).

Link to this entry

Mississippian spread near Zebree

Place and era: Zebree and northeast Arkansas. The report discusses A.D. 700-1000. These section dates do not date an attack or a loss of land.
What the evidence supports: The report describes new pottery and a planned village at Zebree. It reports a ditch and a possible stockade. Pottery skills, people, or both are possible sources of these changes.
What remains unknown: These finds do not show an attack or loss of land on their own. The cause and effects remain open.
What is needed next: Read the cited Zebree work. Compare the spread of pottery skills with the movement of people. Ask what changed in homes, access or land use.

Link to this entry

The Tunit tale of loss at Uglit.

Place and era: Uglit near Iglulik. The tale gives no date.
What the evidence supports: Ivaluardjuk tells of Tunit homes at Uglit. More numerous others drove the Tunit out. They left the village area. Rasmussen prints the tale. Worster made the English text from Danish.
What remains unknown: Its date and place in history are not clear. The name Tunit does not prove a Dorset link. We do not know who drove them out. The tale tells of great strength and a man who makes rock fly with a harpoon.
What is needed next: Assess this tale as a claim about the past. Compare it with the broad Thule case. Keep group links and dates unresolved.

Knud Rasmussen, Intellectual Culture of the Iglulik Eskimos, translated from the Danish by W. Worster, Report of the Fifth Thule Expedition 1921–24, vol. VII, no. 1 (Copenhagen, 1929), printed pp. 256–257 (physical PDF pp. 288, 291); genre/method context printed p. 251 and opening p. 252 (physical pp. 283–284), printed pp. 9–11 (physical pp. 11–13).

Link to this entry

Marade: a village grant

Place and era: The site of Marade is unclear. Fleet puts these charters near the fifth century CE. Exact years stay unknown.
What the evidence supports: Fleet reports a village gift for the Aharishti sect and its temple. Harivarma made the gift. Bhanusakti asked for it. Dharmanandi oversaw the sect.
What remains unknown: Earlier rights and users are unclear. The source does not state an exemption from tax for this gift. Its effects on prior users remain open.
What is needed next: Trace village rights and what changed for prior users. Assess whether the grant changed use or control of the land.

J. F. Fleet, “Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions,” The Indian Antiquary VI (January 1877), No. XXVI, printed pp. 31, 32 (physical PDF pp. 51, 52).

Link to this entry

Questions about who controlled land use

Place and era: Several Lower Mississippi Valley and coastal settings. The report discusses different models within A.D. 400-1000. This is not the date range of one event.
What the evidence supports: The report gives models for crop schedules, ranked centers and household resources. The models differ on who held power. One view allows coastal groups to retain their own ways of life.
What remains unknown: It is unclear whether anyone lost control of land use or access. These models cover different places and times. A loss of control need not involve departure.
What is needed next: Check each model in its own place and time. Ask how control of land use changed and whether anyone lost use or access.

Link to this entry

Proposed Hoecake expansion and conflict

Place and era: Northeast Arkansas and nearby southeast Missouri. The report places this discussion in A.D. 400-700. The proposed expansion has no settled dates.
What the evidence supports: The report cites a view that Hoecake people expanded at the expense of the Barnes tradition. That view includes conflict. The report also records doubts about the dates.
What remains unknown: It is unclear whether the proposed expansion changed homes, land use, access or control. The links between the groups remain disputed.
What is needed next: Read the cited conflict argument when access is available. Ask whether the proposed expansion changed local homes, land use, access or control.

Link to this entry

Madhava gives land near the Paruvi tank.

Place and era: The book names the Paruvi tank. It links the tract to Parigi. The date is not set.
What the evidence supports: The book says Madhava gave land near the tank. It links the gift to the Penukonda plates.
What remains unknown: His place in the king list is not clear. Prior rights and use of the land are unknown.
What is needed next: Check the rights changed by the gift. Keep the place claim in the book open.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed p. 105 (physical PDF p. 109).

Link to this entry

A grant of Kumura village.

Place and era: The book names Kumura in Paruvishaya. Its date and exact site are not set.
What the evidence supports: The book reports a grant of Kumura. This is a gift apart from the land near the tank.
What remains unknown: The plate number differs in the book. Its dates and the earlier village rights are not clear.
What is needed next: Check what rights the gift gave. Assess any forced loss of use or control.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed p. 105 (physical PDF p. 109).

Link to this entry

Russell Landing: movement or shared ideas

Place and era: Russell Landing and nearby inland Louisiana. The report discusses 600-100 B.C. These are section dates, not dates of a settled movement.
What the evidence supports: The report cites two views of Russell Landing. One proposes movement north from the coast. The other proposes the spread of ideas. The report also notes ties to pottery farther north.
What remains unknown: It is unclear which view fits the evidence. No imposed loss of homes, land use, access or control is established. The order of the changes is also unclear.
What is needed next: Read the thesis and settlement argument by Gibson. Compare movement and shared ideas. Ask what changed for people and their use of land.

Link to this entry

Punnad comes under Ganga rule.

Place and era: The book names Punnad. The date and full bounds are not set.
What the evidence supports: The book says Durvinita added Punnad to the Ganga kingdom.
What remains unknown: Some records cited by the book are in dispute. The marriage does not prove how rule changed. Effects on residents are unknown.
What is needed next: Assess the reported change in rule. Keep the marriage, battles and land transfer apart.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed p. 109 (physical PDF p. 113).

Link to this entry

Ravi and a gift of land

Place and era: The text does not name the tract. Fleet puts these charters near the fifth century CE. Exact years stay unknown.
What the evidence supports: Fleet reports a gift of four nivartanas to Jinendra. The text links this gift to the favor of the mother of Damakirtti. A nivartana is a unit of land.
What remains unknown: Earlier users and rights are unclear. The gift does not have a known link to the deaths named in the same text. Its effects on prior users remain open.
What is needed next: Trace the tract, its rights and its prior users. Check whether the gift caused a loss of use or control.

J. F. Fleet, “Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions,” The Indian Antiquary VI (January 1877), No. XXIV, printed p. 30 (physical PDF p. 48).

Link to this entry

Kheta and Purukhetaka: rights and income

Place and era: The links between these place names are unclear. Fleet puts these charters near the fifth century CE. Exact years stay unknown.
What the evidence supports: Fleet reports an earlier holder of Kheta, a renewed grant and a gift by Jayakirtti. He also says Ravi set rules for the use of village income. The rules support rites and holy people.
What remains unknown: The source leaves some grant roles unclear. The links between the sites and acts remain open. Effects on prior users are unknown.
What is needed next: Trace each grant and its rights. Keep each act apart while its links remain unclear.

J. F. Fleet, “Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions,” The Indian Antiquary VI (January 1877), No. XXII, printed pp. 25, 26, 27 (physical PDF pp. 37, 38, 43).

Link to this entry

The king Buddharaja flees.

Place and era: The book names Buddharaja. The land he left and his refuge are not clear. The date is not set.
What the evidence supports: The book says Mangalesa put a king to flight. It names him as Buddharaja. Chapter V reports that Mangalesa defeated Buddharaja before 601 AD. It also reports Buddharaja ruling at Vidisa in 609 AD and Anandapura in 610 AD.
What remains unknown: His route and later home are unknown. The effect of the flight on land control is not clear. Those later authority reports do not prove permanent removal or return. The defeat and forced flight are not established as one episode. The dates remain the book's reports, not an assigned event year.
What is needed next: Assess the forced flight and its land effects. Keep it apart from the death and island seizure. Assess how the defeat, flight and later authority relate without merging them.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 112, 113 (physical PDF pp. 116, 117). | G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan. English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter V, The dynasties of Western Deccan. Printed p. 82; PDF p. 86.

Link to this entry

Mrigesa and a temple land gift

Place and era: Palasika and land from Matrisarit to Inginisamgama. Fleet puts these charters near the fifth century CE. Exact years stay unknown.
What the evidence supports: Fleet reports a Jina temple and a gift of thirty-three nivartanas of land. The gift supports Arhats and Kurchakas. The king was at Vaijayanti. This does not place all the granted land there.
What remains unknown: Earlier rights and land use are not clear. How the grant took effect and whether it caused loss remain open.
What is needed next: Trace the rights and earlier users of the granted land. A loss of land use need not involve departure.

J. F. Fleet, “Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions,” The Indian Antiquary VI (January 1877), No. XXI, printed pp. 24, 25 (physical PDF pp. 34, 37).

Link to this entry

Mrigesa and claims of force

Place and era: The attack sites are unknown. Fleet puts these charters near the fifth century CE. Exact years stay unknown.
What the evidence supports: Fleet translates a claim that Mrigesa uprooted the Tungaganga family. The same text calls him a destructive force against the Pallavas.
What remains unknown: The text does not fix the sites, bounds or changes in control. It does not show the fate of all residents.
What is needed next: Trace the acts and the people or land they affected. Check whether a loss of control or use took place.

J. F. Fleet, “Sanskrit and Old Canarese Inscriptions,” The Indian Antiquary VI (January 1877), No. XXI, printed p. 25 (physical PDF p. 37).

Link to this entry

Proposed Baytown intrusion

Place and era: The northeastern edge of the Issaquena area in the Lower Mississippi Valley. The report discusses A.D. 400-700. These are section dates.
What the evidence supports: The report cites a view that Baytown groups entered the northeastern edge of the Issaquena area. It also describes ties to earlier groups farther north.
What remains unknown: It is unclear whether residents lost homes, land use, access or control. Local change is another possible explanation. Check the Belmont page reference.
What is needed next: Check the Belmont reference and the argument behind it. Trace what changed for residents. Keep local change and movement as possible explanations.

Link to this entry

Homes left in the Western Lowlands

Place and era: Northeast Arkansas and nearby Missouri. The report places the decline around 1350 to 1400. These are broad source dates.
What the evidence supports: Permanent homes fell out of use in the western area. Homes became more common farther east. The report describes a separate history from Cairo.
What remains unknown: Local land and river conditions differ from Cairo. The cause, people and terms of any move remain unclear.
What is needed next: Study the western sites and the cited land use argument. Keep this question apart from Cairo and the much earlier Ozark shift.

Marvin D. Jeter and G. Ishmael Williams, Jr., Chapter 7 in Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Trans-Mississippi South in Arkansas and Louisiana (Arkansas Archeological Survey, 1989), printed pp. 171, 180, 181, 185, 188 (physical PDF pp. 183, 192, 193, 197, 200).

Link to this entry

Possible flight and refuge in the Yazoo Basin

Place and era: The Yazoo Basin. The report links these changes to Spanish contact. It places the Russell phase into the early 1700s.
What the evidence supports: The report proposes a move away from the Mississippi. It describes possible refuge for Tunica, Yazoo, Ofo and other people in the Russell phase.
What remains unknown: The origins and group links remain uncertain. A refuge does not prove that new people forced earlier residents out.
What is needed next: Study the proposed flight and the new homes. Keep the origins of each proposed group distinct.

Link to this entry

Land gains by Gautamiputra in the book.

Place and era: The book places this claim in ancient South Asia. The list of nine regions shows the scope of royal rule. It does not date each land gain.
What the evidence supports: The book says Gautamiputra took lands from the Kshaharata house. The royal praise claims he uprooted that house and restored rule. The author infers that he seized lands of the former house. Senart prints the same praise in the Nasik edition. Both works draw on the same royal text.
What remains unknown: Royal praise does not prove that he killed or drove out all the people it names. Coins that bear new stamps do not prove he killed Nahapana. The list does not show nine gains at one time. The effects on residents and the exact dates remain unknown.
What is needed next: Keep the field grant at Nasik distinct from the reported loss of a rival domain. Test any link. Do not assume that war emptied the field. Keep wider overlap open.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar, 1920, Chapter II, printed pp. 23–25 (physical PDF pp. 27–29; core p. 23 / physical 27). One regional synthesis; nested royal claims and cited editions are not separate witnesses.
E. Senart, The Inscriptions in the Caves at Nasik, Epigraphia Indica VIII (volume label 1905–1906), inscription 2, electronic continuations 2–6, translation on 3–4. Previously accepted electronic edition reading; printed pagination and exact imprint not independently established. Same underlying Nasik royal praise, not another witness.

Link to this entry

Possible moves from Cairo to Nodena

Place and era: The Cairo Lowland and northeast Arkansas. The report places these changes around 1350 to 1400. These are broad source dates.
What the evidence supports: The report describes a decline in homes near Cairo and more homes near Nodena. It cites a view that people moved between these areas.
What remains unknown: The people, cause and terms of the move remain unclear. Similar dates do not prove that the same group moved between these places.
What is needed next: Study the proposed Cairo move and Nodena homes. Keep both the departure and the new homes in view.

Link to this entry

Town control and captives at Quigaute

Place and era: The account names Quigaute town and nearby places. Earlier and later chapters give dates in 1541 and 1542. The exact year and modern locations remain unverified.
What the evidence supports: The expedition under Soto lodged in half of Quigaute town. Soto demanded men for service. When they did not come, he sent parties that took men and women. He gave an order to burn the other half of the town. The passage does not say that anyone carried out the order. Soto later left the chief in his town.
What remains unknown: The passage does not confirm a fire or its extent. The effects on each home and resident remain unclear. The identity and overlap of the capture groups remain unclear. The fate of captives and later land control remain unknown.
What is needed next: Trace each capture group and the terms of service. Keep actual town use separate from the order to burn. Do not assume that gifts meant free consent.

Elvas narrative, Richard Hakluyt English translation (reprinted from 1611), William B. Rye (ed.), Hakluyt Society, London, 1851; printed pp. 103–105 (physical PDF pp. 181–183). One translated narrative family; original Portuguese and separate cited works not independently consulted.

Link to this entry

Salt access at Avery Island

Place and era: Avery Island and proposed salt sources nearer the Mississippi Valley. The report gives no settled date for an access loss.
What the evidence supports: The report links salt pans at Avery Island to people from the valley. It cites a view that other groups controlled nearer salt sources. In this view, that control forced a longer trip.
What remains unknown: The report does not establish an actual ban or name the groups in control. The users, nearer sources and terms of access remain unclear.
What is needed next: Study the salt sources and their users. Ask whether anyone lost access. Keep travel and trade as other possible explanations.

Link to this entry

War and homes near Parkin

Place and era: Parkin and Nodena lie in northeast Arkansas. The report describes late prehistoric homes. It notes possible contact with De Soto in 1541. That date does not date one forced move.
What the evidence supports: The report describes fortified villages near Parkin. Surveys found no isolated farms there. The report cites accounts of war between Casqui and Pacaha. It proposes a link between the war and the pattern of homes.
What remains unknown: The links from Parkin to Casqui and Nodena to Pacaha remain uncertain. The source does not establish one attack or forced loss of homes.
What is needed next: Compare the farm and village evidence with the war account. Keep the proposed group links clear.

Link to this entry

Hanna and control of trade

Place and era: Hanna and nearby ceremonial centers in the Caddoan area. The report does not date one loss of access.
What the evidence supports: The report compares few imported goods at Hanna with rich finds at some centers. It cites a view that elites controlled trade and kept these goods. In this view, the goods did not reach the wider community.
What remains unknown: The difference in goods does not establish one act of exclusion. The users, routes and changes in access remain unclear.
What is needed next: Study the Hanna trade argument and the finds behind it. Ask who used the routes and who obtained the goods.

Link to this entry

Flight and town occupation at Pacaha

Place and era: The account names the town of Pacaha and an island refuge. Earlier and later chapters give dates in 1541 and 1542. The exact year and modern locations remain unverified.
What the evidence supports: The Elvas account reports flight from Pacaha. Soto led the expedition that occupied the town and used its goods and fishery. People from Casqui joined the pursuit. The account reports captures and drownings at an island refuge. The chief later came to meet Soto. Soto ordered the release of the brother of the Pacaha chief and other principal prisoners.
What remains unknown: The link between the town and refuge groups remains unclear. Death and displacement totals remain unknown. The account does not say that all captives went free. Later residence and land rights remain unclear.
What is needed next: Keep the later raid against Casqui separate. Compare this account with the Parkin and Nodena lead. Keep the possible overlap open.

Elvas narrative, Richard Hakluyt English translation (reprinted from 1611), William B. Rye (ed.), Hakluyt Society, London, 1851; printed pp. 97–103 (physical PDF pp. 175–181). One translated narrative family; original Portuguese and separate cited works not independently consulted.

Link to this entry

Possible control of coastal water routes

Place and era: Coastal settlements in Louisiana. The date and place of any imposed loss remain unclear.
What the evidence supports: The report cites Saucier on coastal villages. He proposes that major villages controlled water travel. The report does not give field evidence to confirm this view.
What remains unknown: The users, rules and effect on access remain unclear. A major village does not by itself prove that people lost use of a water route.
What is needed next: Compare the route control model with the field evidence. Keep local land and food use, seasonal moves and trade in view.

Link to this entry

Earlier moves from the river levees

Place and era: The Lower Ouachita. The report places the proposed shift between about 1200 and 1400. These are broad source dates.
What the evidence supports: The report cites a view that homes shifted away from river levees. In this view, people moved toward tributaries and backswamps. The report also describes growth in Catahoula.
What remains unknown: The cause and people remain unclear. The report does not name anyone who forced the move. River changes and gaps in surveys are other possible explanations.
What is needed next: Study the levee and tributary sites. Keep this earlier shift apart from later homes near the river junctions.

Link to this entry

Change and continued homes in the Tensas Basin

Place and era: The northern and southern Tensas Basin. The report places change near Transylvania around 1500 or 1550. Those dates mark a proposed sequence.
What the evidence supports: The report says Mississippian culture spread into the northern basin. It calls this the Transylvania phase. Fitzhugh use continued farther south. Mixed phases came later.
What remains unknown: Cultural change does not prove that new people forced residents out. The report does not establish one loss across the whole basin.
What is needed next: Compare northern change with continued homes in the south. Keep the later mixed phases distinct.

Marvin D. Jeter and G. Ishmael Williams, Jr., Chapter 7 in Archeology and Bioarcheology of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Trans-Mississippi South in Arkansas and Louisiana (Arkansas Archeological Survey, 1989), printed pp. 184, 209, 211, 212 (physical PDF pp. 196, 221, 223, 224).

Link to this entry

An arrival theory and earlier homes

Place and era: Southeast Arkansas. The report discusses the Bartholomew phase. It does not give settled dates for a known move.
What the evidence supports: The report describes a view that people arrived from Tensas or the Ouachita. That view relied on an area thought empty. Later study found earlier Plum Bayou occupation.
What remains unknown: Earlier homes weaken the claim of empty land. They do not prove that no one arrived. Pottery groups do not settle who lived there.
What is needed next: Compare the arrival theory with the earlier sites. Retain both the movement question and the evidence of earlier homes.

Link to this entry

A claim of retainer sacrifice

Place and era: Mounds Plantation and a separate inland Plaquemine discussion. The report does not date a land or home loss for these claims.
What the evidence supports: The report cites a view that some Mounds Plantation burials involved retainer sacrifice. It also describes this practice in inland Plaquemine elite burials. It gives no coastal evidence for that practice.
What remains unknown: The burial counts do not show how many people died by sacrifice. The report does not establish one land or home loss from these claims. These passages do not describe one shared group.
What is needed next: Study the grave evidence and the sacrifice argument. Keep each place and practice distinct. Do not treat every burial as a sacrifice.

Link to this entry

The inscription claims land gains by Rudradaman.

Place and era: The book lists four regions. The fuller inscription names more lands in ancient South Asia. Some names come from restored text.
What the evidence supports: Kielhorn translates the inscription as a claim that Rudradaman gained lordship over lands by his own valour. The text includes towns, markets, rural areas and subjects. It says he destroyed the Yaudheyas by force. It also says he twice defeated Satakarni but spared him due to kinship. It says he put deposed kings back in power.
What remains unknown: The text does not establish one campaign or a date for each land gain. The storm date and an estimated date for the text do not date the battles. The identity of Satakarni, prior rulers, resident fates and the scale of harm remain unclear. For the dam work, the text denies a burden of forced labour. The tentative sense of one term does not prove a forced levy for that work.
What is needed next: Keep the land gains, the defeats and the return of kings to power distinct. Test their links. Do not assume one campaign. Keep wider overlap open.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar, 1920, Chapter II, printed pp. 42–43 (physical PDF pp. 46–47), with reconstruction limits on pp. 43–44 (physical 47–48). One regional synthesis; nested royal claims and cited editions are not separate witnesses.
F. Kielhorn, edition of Rudradaman’s Junagadh inscription, Epigraphia Indica VIII (bibliographic volume label 1905–1906), printed pp. 36–49, with a plate (physical PDF pp. 1–15). Acquired lordship: pp. 41, 44 line 11 and note 1, 47 (PDF 6, 9, 13); military and spared-rival claims: pp. 44, 47–48 (PDF 9, 13–14). Same inscription as the book’s mediated claim; no new historical witness.

Link to this entry

The Cola campaign and claimed benefits

Place and era: The verses name Colas, Keralas, Pandyas and the Kaveri. No event year or route is set.
What the evidence supports: One verse says the ruler strove to conquer the Colas. The next claims benefits for Colas, Keralas and Pandyas against the Pallava army.
What remains unknown: A completed land gain is not stated. The peoples said to benefit and the Pallava army are distinct. The event boundaries remain open.
What is needed next: Keep the intent, operation and claimed benefits separate before you define a case.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 113, 114 (physical PDF pp. 117, 118).
Dániel Balogh (digital editor), DHARMA, Aihole temple foundation of Ravikirti of the time of Pulakesin II; reproduced Kielhorn (1900–1901) English translation and notes, verse(s) 30, 31.

Link to this entry

Ganga and Alupa lords at court

Place and era: The verse names Ganga and Alupa lords. No event year or tract boundary is set.
What the evidence supports: The verse praises their regular attendance on the ruler and their submission to his dignity.
What remains unknown: It does not state conquest by force, a grant or removal of residents. The number of distinct events is not set.
What is needed next: Assess the control relation. Court attendance alone does not prove forced removal.

Link to this entry

Lata, Malava and Gurjara submission claims

Place and era: The verse names these three groups. No event year or tract boundary is set.
What the evidence supports: The verse describes submission. Its note calls their submission voluntary and contrasts force used against others. Chapter V says Pulakesin II vanquished Lata, Gujarat and Malwa.
What remains unknown: A dispute about the text affects that contrast. Force or loss of rights cannot be assigned to all three from the comparison. That stronger book summary does not resolve the dispute about voluntary and forced submission. The summaries use different names: Gujarat and Gurjara.
What is needed next: Keep the disputed sense visible. Assess each bounded outcome before you define a case. Keep both attributions and the number of episodes open.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 113, 114 (physical PDF pp. 117, 118). | G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan. English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter V, The dynasties of Western Deccan. Printed p. 82; PDF p. 86.
Dániel Balogh (digital editor), DHARMA, Aihole temple foundation of Ravikirti of the time of Pulakesin II; reproduced Kielhorn (1900–1901) English translation and notes, verse(s) 22.

Link to this entry

Pulakesin I at Vatapi

Place and era: The sources name Vatapi. No event year or boundary is set.
What the evidence supports: The book says Pulakesin I set himself up at Vatapi. The verse calls the city his bride.
What remains unknown: How he gained control and what happened to earlier users are not clear. The bride is a figure of speech.
What is needed next: Assess how control changed. Keep the separate proposal about northern Kadamba lands.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 98, 102, 111 (physical PDF pp. 102, 106, 115).
Dániel Balogh (digital editor), DHARMA, Aihole temple foundation of Ravikirti of the time of Pulakesin II; reproduced Kielhorn (1900–1901) English translation and notes, verse(s) 7.

Link to this entry

Enemy pressure at two Chaco villages.

Place and era: The sites are Pueblo Bonito and Pueblo del Arroyo. They are in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. The report does not give firm dates for the attacks or departures.
What the evidence supports: The report says enemy pressure and poor crops helped cause people to leave both villages. At Bonito, it describes missiles from a cliff and changes to walls and doors for defense.
What remains unknown: The report does not tie the two departures to one event or date. Who attacked, how people left, and where they went remain unknown.
What is needed next: Ask how hostile pressure affected each village and how it related to the loss of homes. Keep reuse of stone and the unfinished site apart from forced loss.

Archeological Investigations in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, attributed to Neil M. Judd, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 78(7), 1927, pp. 158–168 (PDF pp. 468–478), especially p. 161 fig. 161 and pp. 162–163.

Link to this entry

Military pressure at Kancipura

Place and era: The verse refers to the walls of Kancipura. No event year or route is set.
What the evidence supports: The verse describes military pressure on Pallava power in relation to the city walls.
What remains unknown: Notes dispute the text and retreat image. No supplied version explicitly states capture of the city.
What is needed next: Assess the pressure and control outcome. A disputed text does not prove that a city was taken.

Link to this entry

The naval siege of Puri

Place and era: The verse names Puri. No modern town, event year or boundary is set.
What the evidence supports: The verse reports a siege of Puri from the sea.
What remains unknown: Capture and residents' fate are not stated. The town is not linked to another Puri by its name alone.
What is needed next: Assess what happened at the besieged place. Keep modern location and completed capture unresolved.

Link to this entry

The appended Aihole temple possession passage

Place and era: The appended lines name places and a field. Their phase, event year and full boundaries are not set.
What the evidence supports: One translation lists land as the possession of the god. Another account suggests village revenue for the temple.
What remains unknown: The phase, ruler and parts of the boundaries are uncertain. No eviction or loss of earlier rights is stated.
What is needed next: Assess this separate land or revenue act. Use appended lines 18-19, not poem stanzas 18 and 19.

Dániel Balogh (digital editor), DHARMA, Aihole temple foundation of Ravikirti of the time of Pulakesin II; reproduced Kielhorn summary and Fleet (1879) excerpt, appended physical/inscriptional lines 18–19, not poem stanzas; phase and attribution uncertain.

Link to this entry

The conquest linked to the Eastern Chalukya kingdom

Place and era: The book names Telugu country and three districts. Its event year and exact boundary are not set.
What the evidence supports: The book links conquest of this land to the new kingdom. Its family tree names Kubja-Vishnuvardhana as founder. Chapter VI says Pulakesin II ended the earlier dynasty and annexed Vengi.
What remains unknown: The passage does not state how the kingdom was set up or what happened to residents. Whether it includes the seizure at Pishtapura is not clear. The older gloss names Godavari, Krishna and Guntur. Chapter III names Guntur and Nellore. It also says Kanchi held after Pullalur. Those claims need not have one extent.
What is needed next: Assess the land change and the link to Pishtapura. Do not count one conquest twice. Retain both district lists and the defended Kanchi account.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 111, 113 (physical PDF pp. 115, 117). | G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VI, printed pp. 92 (physical PDF pp. 96). Vengi annexation and the end of Vishnukundin rule. | G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter III, printed p. 69 (physical PDF p. 73). Defended Kanchi and Guntur/Nellore loss.

Link to this entry

The victory lists of Kirtivarman

Place and era: The sources name several opponents and lands. No common event year or boundary is set.
What the evidence supports: The book and translated verse praise victories over named rulers. They name Nalas, Mauryas and Kadambas.
What remains unknown: A list does not show a separate case for each name. Specific outcomes remain open.
What is needed next: Resolve each act and its outcome before a case split. Keep each named lead visible.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 112 (physical PDF pp. 116).
Dániel Balogh (digital editor), DHARMA, Aihole temple foundation of Ravikirti of the time of Pulakesin II; reproduced Kielhorn (1900–1901) English translation and notes, verse(s) 9, 10.

Link to this entry

The proposed loss of northern Kadamba lands

Place and era: The book discusses Vatapi, Palasika and northern Kadamba lands. No event year is set.
What the evidence supports: The book infers loss of northern Kadamba lands from the position of Vatapi.
What remains unknown: This is an inference by the author. It does not show a specific defeat or a forced departure.
What is needed next: Test the proposed loss of control. A gap in later records does not prove that people left.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 98, 102, 111 (physical PDF pp. 102, 106, 115).

Link to this entry

The reported installation of Madhava

Place and era: The book discusses Ganga and Pallava rule. No event year or tract boundary is set.
What the evidence supports: The book reports that a Pallava ruler placed Madhava, the son of Ayyavarman, on his throne.
What remains unknown: Its effect on earlier rights is not clear. This is a different act from the Paruvi land grant.
What is needed next: Assess the installation and control outcome. Keep the grant and disputed family history separate.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 105, 108 (physical PDF pp. 109, 112).

Link to this entry

The siege of Banavasi

Place and era: The verse names Banavasi beside the Varada. No event year or modern boundary is set.
What the evidence supports: The verse reports a siege of Banavasi and an army around its fort.
What remains unknown: Capture and departure of residents are not stated. The sea-of-army image is not an actual flood.
What is needed next: Assess the effect on control, access or residence. Do not infer capture or evacuation from siege alone.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 103, 113, 114 (physical PDF pp. 107, 117, 118).
Dániel Balogh (digital editor), DHARMA, Aihole temple foundation of Ravikirti of the time of Pulakesin II; reproduced Kielhorn (1900–1901) English translation and notes, verse(s) 18.

Link to this entry

The reported Pallava devastation

Place and era: The book cites the Anaji inscription. The tract and event year are not set.
What the evidence supports: The book reports that Pallavas left the country in ruin.
What remains unknown: What the ruin meant for homes, land and people is not clear. There is no known measure of its extent.
What is needed next: Assess the reported damage and its land outcome. Unknown extent does not mean no harm.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 103 (physical PDF pp. 107).

Link to this entry

Mangalesa loses his kingdom and life

Place and era: The sources describe a dispute over rule. No event year or measured tract is set.
What the evidence supports: The translated verse reports that Mangalesa lost his kingdom and life in the struggle over succession.
What remains unknown: The method, the fate of residents and the full tract are unknown. A separate resolve to go into exile is not proof of a completed move.
What is needed next: Assess the bounded loss of rule. Keep the text on proposed exile and the other acts of Mangalesa separate.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 113 (physical PDF pp. 117).
Dániel Balogh (digital editor), DHARMA, Aihole temple foundation of Ravikirti of the time of Pulakesin II; reproduced Kielhorn (1900–1901) English translation and notes, verse(s) 14, 15, 16.

Link to this entry

The proposed later Ganga occupation

Place and era: The book discusses later Ganga rule. No event year or tract boundary is set.
What the evidence supports: The book proposes a later Ganga occupation from the Polavira Tagare plates.
What remains unknown: The place, sequence and kind of control need assessment. This is not a proved continuation of an earlier war.
What is needed next: Assess this separate proposed change of control. Keep the inference by the author visible.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 103 (physical PDF pp. 107).

Link to this entry

Reported victory of Prithivishena in Kuntala

Place and era: The book names Kuntala. No event year is set.
What the evidence supports: The book reports a victory over the king of Kuntala.
What remains unknown: The book proposes Kangavarman as the defeated king. The effect on land and residents is not clear.
What is needed next: Assess the outcome for control or residence. Keep the proposed name of the king distinct from the victory claim.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 99, 100 (physical PDF pp. 103, 104).

Link to this entry

The claim to rule three Maharashtrakas

Place and era: The verse names three Maharashtrakas. No measured boundary or event year is set.
What the evidence supports: The translated verse claims that the ruler gained rule over these lands.
What remains unknown: The way control changed and the effect on residents are unknown. The village figure in the source is not a measured count of harm.
What is needed next: Assess the claimed gain of control. Do not make one case per village or require civilian eviction.

Dániel Balogh (digital editor), DHARMA, Aihole temple foundation of Ravikirti of the time of Pulakesin II; reproduced Kielhorn (1900–1901) English translation and notes, verse(s) 25.

Link to this entry

Bhogivarman: a reported gain of a kingdom

Place and era: The book discusses the kingdom of Bhogivarman. Its full extent and event year are not set.
What the evidence supports: The book reports that Bhogivarman gained a large kingdom by force.
What remains unknown: The earlier holders, full tract and fate of residents remain unknown. This does not prove the end of a whole people.
What is needed next: Assess the reported change of control. No death count or proof of civilian eviction is required.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 103 (physical PDF pp. 107).

Link to this entry

The reported installation of Ayyavarman

Place and era: The book discusses Ganga and Pallava rule. No event year or tract boundary is set.
What the evidence supports: The book reports that a Pallava ruler placed Ayyavarman on his throne.
What remains unknown: The ceremony alone does not show forced loss of land rights or residence.
What is needed next: Assess the control relation and any imposed change in rights. Do not treat the ceremony alone as displacement.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 105, 108 (physical PDF pp. 109, 112).

Link to this entry

Defeat of the Konkan Mauryas

Place and era: The verse names Mauryas in the Konkanas. No event year or boundary is set.
What the evidence supports: The verse praises a military defeat of the Mauryas by forces of the ruler.
What remains unknown: It does not establish the fate of all Maurya subjects. A shared name does not link all Maurya groups.
What is needed next: Assess the bounded control or residence outcome. Keep the praise and population limits clear.

Link to this entry

Appayika and Govinda: different outcomes

Place and era: The verse names land north of Bhaimarathi. No event year or boundary is set.
What the evidence supports: The verse describes two leaders who came to conquer. It gives fear in battle to one and reward for service to the other.
What remains unknown: The English text does not fix which name has which outcome. The book makes a stronger choice. No completed conquest is stated.
What is needed next: Keep the outcomes and texts distinct. Assess any loss of land or residence before you divide events.

Link to this entry

The Harsha battle and its land outcome

Place and era: The translated verse names Harsha. No event year or tract boundary is set.
What the evidence supports: The verse names Harsha in a battle account with fear and fallen elephants.
What remains unknown: It does not state a civilian death count or territorial annexation. The earlier name correction is already settled.
What is needed next: Assess any bounded land or residence loss from the battle. Do not repeat the closed name check.

Dániel Balogh (digital editor), DHARMA, Aihole temple foundation of Ravikirti of the time of Pulakesin II; reproduced Kielhorn (1900–1901) English translation and notes, verse(s) 23.
G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 113 (physical PDF pp. 117). Its Harsha-absence claim is corrected by the separately cited verse 23; it is not positive battle wording.

Link to this entry

The lethal battle at Kunala

Place and era: The verse names Kunala. Its modern identity, boundary and event year are not set.
What the evidence supports: The verse describes men killed with weapons at Kunala and blood in the water.
What remains unknown: There is no known death count or civilian status. The land outcome and proposed modern place remain open.
What is needed next: Assess the land or residence outcome of the battle. Keep the lethal claim and unknown extent visible.

Link to this entry

The proposed defeat of Krishnavarman II

Place and era: The book discusses Kadamba rule. No event year or tract boundary is set.
What the evidence supports: The book proposes Krishnavarman II as the ruler defeated by Kirtivarman.
What remains unknown: The identity of the defeated ruler and the effect on control remain open. Other wars and later gains are separate questions.
What is needed next: Assess this proposed defeat and its outcome. Do not merge the separate changes of rule.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VII, printed pp. 103 (physical PDF pp. 107).

Link to this entry

Reported expulsion from the Lanier valley

Place and era: The diary names the Lanier valley. Its entry is from November 1917. It gives no date for the expulsion.
What the evidence supports: Hutton recalls an earlier expulsion of people he calls Kukis. He also reports orders that barred their return.
What remains unknown: The entry gives no date, destination or number of people expelled. It does not identify which later returners were among them.
What is needed next: Assess the expulsion and return ban as one reported process. Keep later settlement and the threat of another eviction separate.

J. H. Hutton, tour-diary entry of 16 November 1917, Cambridge record R72034, Lapvomi paragraph: retrospective expulsion and prohibited-return assertion; final paragraph: orders dated 1910. Hosted transcript; original manuscript not checked.

Link to this entry

A report of looting at Tsukemi

Place and era: The diary names Tsukemi. It places the looting in the year before its November 1917 entry.
What the evidence supports: Hutton says a party from the Somra tract looted Tsukemi.
What remains unknown: The entry does not state whether residents left, lost their homes or lost control of land.
What is needed next: Look for an account of what happened to residents and their homes. Looting alone does not establish a forced move.

J. H. Hutton, tour-diary entry of 16 November 1917, Cambridge record R72034, First prose paragraph: prior looting of Tsukemi, placed in the year before the diary entry. Hosted transcript; original manuscript not checked.

Link to this entry

Amjapao's reported search for a village site

Place and era: The diary names Phozami and the Lanier valley. Its entry is from November 1917. It puts the visit about a week earlier.
What the evidence supports: The diary reports a visit to choose a village site. It attributes to Amjapao a plan to return and a wish to avoid wartime service.
What remains unknown: The entry does not show a later move, a completed settlement or an actual forced journey. It does not link this party to the returners near Aishan.
What is needed next: Examine the later outcome of the visit and reported plan. Keep a reported motive distinct from an act of forced removal.

J. H. Hutton, tour-diary entry of 16 November 1917, Cambridge record R72034, Amjapao paragraph: reported Phozami site visit, attributed plan and objection to wartime service. Hosted transcript; original manuscript not checked.

Link to this entry

Reported armed return near Aishan

Place and era: People from Lapvomi claim a site near Aishan. The complaint is from November 1917. It gives no date for the move.
What the evidence supports: People from Lapvomi report armed returners from Manipur on land they claimed. They say they lack the power to remove the group.
What remains unknown: The diary does not settle who owned the land or who lived at the site before the return. It does not say whether Lapvomi residents left.
What is needed next: Assess the reported use and control of the site. Keep this return separate from the earlier expulsion and any later eviction.

J. H. Hutton, tour-diary entry of 16 November 1917, Cambridge record R72034, Lapvomi paragraph: reported return from Manipur to a site near Aishan and inability to eject the armed group. Hosted transcript; original manuscript not checked.

Link to this entry

Forced moves from Chukotka villages

Place and era: Southeastern Chukotka. The scan gives an unclear start year in the 1950s. The reported range ends in 1959. The destination was Novo-Chaplino.
What the evidence supports: Vakhtin reports enforced moves from Unazik, Kivak, Avan, Siklyuk and other villages. Former villages ceased to exist.
What remains unknown: The report gives no full count or dates for each village. A later account of unemployment refers to 1989.
What is needed next: Assess the move and the loss of access to sea mammals. Keep the later unemployment account separate.

Nikolai Vakhtin, Native Peoples of the Russian Far North (Minority Rights Group, August 1992), printed19 / physical20, right paragraphs2–3; note66. One report; the cited original works remain unread.

Link to this entry

Saami village moves

Place and era: Lovozero district, European northern Russia. The report quotes an account from 1988. The move dates remain unclear.
What the evidence supports: Vakhtin reports the merger of six villages. An onlooker describes arrivals from Varzino without prepared homes and years in crowded homes.
What remains unknown: The account does not name all six villages or the destination. The quoted household experience is not a total for everyone moved.
What is needed next: Assess the local moves and the Varzino account together. Route this question to Europe.

Nikolai Vakhtin, Native Peoples of the Russian Far North (Minority Rights Group, August 1992), printed19 / physical20, right paragraph4 and quotation; note67. One report; the cited original works remain unread.

Link to this entry

Khant village closures and moves

Place and era: The report places these Khant villages in the Russian North. It links the moves to the 1950s and 1960s campaign.
What the evidence supports: Vakhtin reports that officials closed farms and village services. Residents moved to larger settlements without support for their former way of life.
What remains unknown: The report gives no full list of villages, destinations or people moved. Dates for each village remain unclear.
What is needed next: Assess the closures and compelled moves. Keep the affected villages distinct from all Khant communities.

Nikolai Vakhtin, Native Peoples of the Russian Far North (Minority Rights Group, August 1992), printed19 / physical20, left paragraphs2–4; note64. One report; the cited original works remain unread.

Link to this entry

Compulsory stays at schools in the Russian North

Place and era: The Russian Far North. The chapter covers 1941 to 1985, but gives no full date range for the school programme.
What the evidence supports: Vakhtin reports compulsory stays at schools for children from settled communities. These included children whose parents lived in the same village.
What remains unknown: The report gives no full list of schools, children or dates. It also reports a recent change towards ordinary day schools.
What is needed next: Assess the compelled separation from family homes. Keep school access, later returns and the change to day schools distinct.

Nikolai Vakhtin, Native Peoples of the Russian Far North (Minority Rights Group, August 1992), printed22–23 / physical22–23, Boarding-School System through page23 opening; no chapter footnote. One report; the cited original works remain unread.

Link to this entry

A ban on subsistence hunts in Tyumen

Place and era: Tyumen Oblast. The report places the ban in 1986 to 1987.
What the evidence supports: Vakhtin reports that the local executive committee banned hunts except state commercial hunts. He links this rule to harm to Khant subsistence.
What remains unknown: The report does not establish where and how officials enforced each restriction. It does not assert a residence move.
What is needed next: Assess the ban and its effect on access. Keep a prohibited use distinct from a transfer of land.

Nikolai Vakhtin, Native Peoples of the Russian Far North (Minority Rights Group, August 1992), printed22 / physical22, left paragraphs2–3; note70. One report; the cited original works remain unread.

Link to this entry

Northern funds and land outcomes

Place and era: The Russian North. The report dates the decree on funds to 1980.
What the evidence supports: Vakhtin reports that funds for Native development went through regional bodies. Native people had no control over those funds, he states.
What remains unknown: The passage gives no project or tract with an identified loss of land or residence.
What is needed next: Locate a specific project and its land outcome. Do not treat the allocation of funds as a completed removal.

Nikolai Vakhtin, Native Peoples of the Russian Far North (Minority Rights Group, August 1992), printed23 / physical23, right final paragraph. One report; the cited original works remain unread.

Link to this entry

The later move from Nunyamo and Pinakul

Place and era: Chukotka. The report places this move 19 years after the Naukan departure. It gives no separate year.
What the evidence supports: Vakhtin reports that officials merged these villages. They moved people again, to Lorino, Lavrentiya and Uelen.
What remains unknown: The report does not establish that all these residents came from Naukan. It gives no count for this later move.
What is needed next: Assess this later move as a linked question. Do not add both groups as if their members were distinct.

Nikolai Vakhtin, Native Peoples of the Russian Far North (Minority Rights Group, August 1992), printed19 / physical20, continuation of Naukan passage; note65. One report; the cited original works remain unread.

Link to this entry

Shor village loss after farm closures

Place and era: Gornaya Shoria is in Siberia. Vakhtin reports a decree from 1960 that closed farms.
What the evidence supports: Vakhtin reports farm closures with no new jobs. Residents left for towns and larger settlements. More than 40 villages became empty.
What remains unknown: The reported share concerns the active population. It does not mean all Shors. The report gives no full list of moves.
What is needed next: Assess the closures and loss of homes. Do not apply the reported share to all Shors.

Nikolai Vakhtin, Native Peoples of the Russian Far North (Minority Rights Group, August 1992), printed19 / physical20, right penultimate paragraph; note68. One report; the cited original works remain unread.

Link to this entry

Refused access for Chukotka sea hunters

Place and era: Chukotka. The report describes permit controls for 15 years before 1987. The author observed refusals in the 1970s.
What the evidence supports: Vakhtin reports that hunters needed permission to go to sea. He witnessed refusals that blocked subsistence trips.
What remains unknown: The report does not name every trip, person or period of exclusion. It does not assert a general ban or a residence move.
What is needed next: Assess the reported loss of access. Do not infer a move from home or the loss of all sea rights.

Nikolai Vakhtin, Native Peoples of the Russian Far North (Minority Rights Group, August 1992), printed22 / physical22, left paragraphs2–3; hunting locator. One report; the cited original works remain unread.

Link to this entry

The 1980 law and local land outcomes

Place and era: Autonomous okrugs in the Russian North. The report dates the law to 1980.
What the evidence supports: Vakhtin describes the law and argues that it weakened Native control. He questions how its stated rights applied in practice.
What remains unknown: The passage names no specific loss of land or home under the law.
What is needed next: Locate an actual land or residence outcome under the law. Do not infer one from its text alone.

Nikolai Vakhtin, Native Peoples of the Russian Far North (Minority Rights Group, August 1992), printed23 / physical23, Autonomous Okrug Law; notes77–78. One report; the cited original works remain unread.

Link to this entry

The move from Naukan

Place and era: Naukan is in Chukotka. The scan gives an unclear year. It reads either 1955 or 1958. Residents went to Nunyamo and Pinakul.
What the evidence supports: Vakhtin reports that persuasion failed. Officials then closed the school, shop and farm, so residents had to leave.
What remains unknown: The report gives no number of people moved. Their full link to the later move remains unclear.
What is needed next: Assess the departure from Naukan. Link the later move without an assumed total for both groups.

Nikolai Vakhtin, Native Peoples of the Russian Far North (Minority Rights Group, August 1992), printed19 / physical20, left bottom through right top; note65. One report; the cited original works remain unread.

Link to this entry

Nivkh moves on Sakhalin

Place and era: Sakhalin, in the 1960s and 1970s. The report names Nogliki and Nekrasovka as destinations.
What the evidence supports: Vakhtin reports forced moves to two larger settlements. He states that the new sites prevented traditional activities.
What remains unknown: The report gives no origin list or count for each move. The cited field visit was in 1982, after those moves.
What is needed next: Assess the moves as one reported process. Keep the field visit date distinct from the move dates.

Nikolai Vakhtin, Native Peoples of the Russian Far North (Minority Rights Group, August 1992), printed19,22 / physical20,22, right bottom then left top after map; note69. One report; the cited original works remain unread.

Link to this entry

A Yukagir student forced to leave

Place and era: Yakutsk. The report dates the account to 1987.
What the evidence supports: Vakhtin reports that insults drove a Yukagir student from university. He attributes the account to what the student told him.
What remains unknown: The passage does not state that the student also left a home or lost land.
What is needed next: Find out whether the student also lost a home. Do not infer land loss from the account of insults.

Nikolai Vakhtin, Native Peoples of the Russian Far North (Minority Rights Group, August 1992), printed17 / physical18, Chauvinism. One report; the cited original works remain unread.

Link to this entry

Land loss at Huumuuwaa

Place and era: The Broken Group Islands in Barkley Sound. The article places the loss in the late eighteenth century.
What the evidence supports: The article reports that Hach'aa7ath took land by force. This land was part of Maktl7ii7ath territory. It included Huumuuwaa.
What remains unknown: The fate of the residents is unclear. The article gives no exact year or full extent of the lost land.
What is needed next: Trace who lost control of this land and what happened to its residents. Keep the links to the attack and merger clear.

Iain McKechnie, “Indigenous Oral History and Settlement Archaeology in Barkley Sound, Western Vancouver Island,” BC Studies 187 (Autumn 2015), 193–228, printed 208 / physical 16, paragraph on the northern boundary and violent seizure; Figure 1, printed 198 / physical 6, is dependent territorial context. One article family; cited originals remain unread.

Link to this entry

Houses on Dicebox Island

Place and era: Dicebox Island in Barkley Sound. The article places four houses in AD 1430 to 1450. These are estimates from dated remains. The supplement gives AD 1440 to 1460.
What the evidence supports: The article dates a group of houses built at about the same time. It describes the high site as a place for defence. It also describes the lower village and later use.
What remains unknown: These traces do not establish a known attack, eviction or forced move. The two date ranges differ. The cause of the house construction is unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the site and its residents. Keep house construction distinct from any loss of homes. Retain both date ranges.

Iain McKechnie, “Indigenous Oral History and Settlement Archaeology in Barkley Sound, Western Vancouver Island,” BC Studies 187 (Autumn 2015), 193–228, printed 212–216 / physical 20–24, upper and lower Huts’atswilh; Figures 9–11, especially final text at printed 214 / physical 22. One article family; cited originals remain unread.
Publisher additional file “Figures” associated with BC Studies 187 article 186162 (DOCX), Associated DOCX “Figures,” Figure 11 caption and embedded upper Huts’atswilh chart; no stable printed/physical PDF page locator. One article family; cited originals remain unread.

Link to this entry

Early camps on northern Bathurst Island

Place and era: Arctic Canada. The report suggests early camps from about 2500 to 1500 BCE. The dates rest on camp form and height above the coast.
What the evidence supports: The survey found small camps, hearths and caches. Their style and height link them to several periods of past land use.
What remains unknown: The finds do not show an attack or forced exit. Gaps between periods of use do not tell us why people left.
What is needed next: Check the dates and causes of local gaps in land use. The wider Thule expansion has its own atlas case.

Robert McGhee, North Bathurst Island Archaeological Project: Final Report, Canadian Museum of Civilization, prepared for Parks Canada (31 January 1997), title and pp. 1-23.

Link to this entry

Settlement traces near Sri Surya Pahar

Place and era: Near Sri Surya Pahar in Assam, India. The author gives rough dates from the sixth to twelfth centuries for some remains. Many dates are uncertain.
What the evidence supports: A field survey found old walls, wells and signs of settlement. Residents also reported finds. People moved or reused some objects.
What remains unknown: The survey does not show forced departure or land loss. The dates and links between many remains are unclear.
What is needed next: Check the history of each place and its former residents. Keep river damage and recent construction separate from evidence of forced land loss.

Bratatee Barman, Ancient Asia8:4 (2017), pp.1–11. Settlement survey, provisional dates and source limits.

Link to this entry

Defeat and later homes

Place and era: Barkley Sound. The defeat follows the earlier land loss and merger in the account. A later account describes homes in the nineteenth century.
What the evidence supports: The article reports that an alliance defeated Hach'aa7ath. The group lost its own rule. A later account names Hachaa people at Huumuuwaa. It calls the place their land.
What remains unknown: How the defeat changed land control or homes is unclear. Loss of self-rule does not prove that the people died out.
What is needed next: Trace the defeat and later residents together. Find out how land control and homes changed.

Iain McKechnie, “Indigenous Oral History and Settlement Archaeology in Barkley Sound, Western Vancouver Island,” BC Studies 187 (Autumn 2015), 193–228, printed 208 and 217–218 / physical 16 and 25–26, coalition defeat and later Hachaa residence at Huumuuwaa. One article family; cited originals remain unread.

Link to this entry

An attack destroyed betel trees used by Khasi growers

Place and era: This took place at Lama Punji in Bangladesh. The report gives the date as 28 July 2025.
What the evidence supports: The report says attackers destroyed betel trees used by Khasi growers. Residents said the aim was to make them leave.
What remains unknown: Who did it is unknown. The extent and duration of lost use remain unclear. A forced exit is not established.
What is needed next: Check the loss of use of this plot. Keep that apart from the claim that the attackers meant to force people out.

Pallab Chakma and Bablu Chakma, “Bangladesh”, The Indigenous World 2026, ed. Dwayne Mamo, IWGIA, printed/physical pp. 153–162. Country text pp. 156–157; note 21, p. 161.

Link to this entry

Officials stopped an eviction while they checked a land claim

Place and era: This took place at Mollapara in Bangladesh. The report dates the threat to September 2025.
What the evidence supports: The report says Paharia families faced an eviction threat. Officials stopped the eviction while they checked the land claim.
What remains unknown: The report does not say what the review found. Any later loss of homes or use of the land is unknown.
What is needed next: Check the land dispute and whether the halt still protects these homes.

Pallab Chakma and Bablu Chakma, “Bangladesh”, The Indigenous World 2026, ed. Dwayne Mamo, IWGIA, printed/physical pp. 153–162. Country text p. 156; note 19, p. 161.

Link to this entry

Kol families lost their homes after a court order

Place and era: This took place at Babudaing in Bangladesh. The report gives the date as 28 October 2025.
What the evidence supports: The report says a court order led to home demolition. Five Kol families then took shelter in a bamboo grove.
What remains unknown: The land title and notice are not verified. The court order and local report remain unread. Where these families lived later is unknown.
What is needed next: Check the order, the land claims and what happened to these families.

Pallab Chakma and Bablu Chakma, “Bangladesh”, The Indigenous World 2026, ed. Dwayne Mamo, IWGIA, printed/physical pp. 153–162. Country text p. 156; notes 17–18, p. 161.

Link to this entry

An attack and a peaceful merger

Place and era: The Broken Group Islands in Barkley Sound. The article places this sequence around the late eighteenth century.
What the evidence supports: Hach'aa7ath attacked Maktl7ii7ath, the article reports. Survivors chose a peaceful merger with Ts'ishaa7ath. Their chiefs ceded ownership of their territory. They kept some stated rights.
What remains unknown: The account does not settle the effects on homes. The exact sequence and its link to the reported land loss remain unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the attack, merger and change in land rights together. Keep the attacker distinct from the group that accepted the merger.

Iain McKechnie, “Indigenous Oral History and Settlement Archaeology in Barkley Sound, Western Vancouver Island,” BC Studies 187 (Autumn 2015), 193–228, printed 207 and 217 / physical 15 and 25, Maktl7ii7ath defeat, chosen peaceful merger, territorial cession and retained rights. One article family; cited originals remain unread.

Link to this entry

Moves after war, and return

Place and era: Hiikwis, Huumuuwaa and other villages in Barkley Sound. The account concerns the nineteenth century, after a long war.
What the evidence supports: The article describes seasonal moves after war. People stayed together for safety. A later part of the same account describes returns to former villages.
What remains unknown: The account does not establish an eviction, blocked return or permanent loss of homes. The effect on each household is unclear.
What is needed next: Trace the moves and later returns together. Keep their seasonal nature and the reasons for safety clear.

Iain McKechnie, “Indigenous Oral History and Settlement Archaeology in Barkley Sound, Western Vancouver Island,” BC Studies 187 (Autumn 2015), 193–228, printed 217–218 / physical 25–26, Long War context and two linked life-stage recollections of collective movement and later seasonal dispersal. One article family; cited originals remain unread.

Link to this entry

Early villages and later changes

Place and era: Maktl7ii and Huumuuwaa in the Broken Group Islands. The article traces ancient villages. It also describes later changes in medieval and early modern times.
What the evidence supports: The article places Maktl7ii before Huumuuwaa in the village sequence. This fits the order in local accounts. It also describes growth, smaller occupied areas and continued use.
What remains unknown: The origins of the residents and later moves remain open questions. Dates and changes in deposits do not prove force or loss of homes.
What is needed next: Trace the residents of each place separately. Keep the older village changes distinct from the later land loss.

Iain McKechnie, “Indigenous Oral History and Settlement Archaeology in Barkley Sound, Western Vancouver Island,” BC Studies 187 (Autumn 2015), 193–228, printed 205–212 and 216–217 / physical 13–20 and 24–25, local descent narratives and separate Maktl7ii/Huumuuwaa settlement sequences; Figures 7–8 at printed 210–211 / physical 18–19. One article family; cited originals remain unread.

Link to this entry

An attack on Santals at Gobindaganj

Place and era: This took place at Gobindaganj in Bangladesh. The report gives the date as 15 August 2025.
What the evidence supports: The report says a group it calls land grabbers attacked Santals. At least three people were injured.
What remains unknown: The exact plot and land use after the attack are unclear. The report does not say whether people lost their homes.
What is needed next: Find the local account and check what changed for the people who used the land.

Pallab Chakma and Bablu Chakma, “Bangladesh”, The Indigenous World 2026, ed. Dwayne Mamo, IWGIA, printed/physical pp. 153–162. Country text p. 156; note 20, p. 161.

Link to this entry

Flight from Burmese raids on Lhota villages

Place and era: The outer Naga Hills, northeast India. The local dates and village names are not given.
What the evidence supports: Hutton records villagers' reports that Lhota people fled into the jungle when Burmese raiders came. His note says the raiders took property and food.
What remains unknown: The note does not name each village or say how long people stayed away. It does not show whether they returned or who used their homes after the raids.
What is needed next: Identify the local attacks and the people who fled. Keep this flight separate from the victory claimed by Akuk and Lakhuti.

J. P. Mills, The Lhota Nagas (1922), Part I, p. 2, note 2 by J. H. Hutton. Gutenberg transcription; print-image comparison unverified.

Link to this entry

A tradition of settlement that forced Aos out

Place and era: The area later described as Lhota country in northeast India. The tradition has no calendar dates.
What the evidence supports: In his account of local traditions, Mills says some new Lhota villages forced Aos out. He also records claims that other villages were built on vacant sites.
What remains unknown: The account does not name the Ao villages, give dates or say where the displaced people went. It does not prove that sites called vacant had no users or rights.
What is needed next: Trace the reported displacement of Aos and the later settlement. Keep this apart from other origin stories and the earlier pressure on Lhota migrants.

J. P. Mills, The Lhota Nagas (1922), Part I, pp. 3–5, especially p. 5. Gutenberg transcription; print-image comparison unverified.

Link to this entry

New rule over other Lhota villages

Place and era: The Naga Hills, northeast India. Mills dates the later annexation to 1889.
What the evidence supports: Mills says the rest of the Lhota people came under annexation in 1889. He gives this as a later step than the annexation of the left-bank villages.
What remains unknown: The passage does not name every village in this later step. It does not say that residents were expelled, new settlers arrived or land was seized from individual owners.
What is needed next: Identify the places and the change in rule in 1889. Keep this step separate from the one in 1878.

J. P. Mills, The Lhota Nagas (1922), Part I, p. 3 and note 5. Gutenberg transcription; print-image comparison unverified.

Link to this entry

Land grants to Lhota villages

Place and era: Plains near the Doyang, northeast India. The grant dates are not given.
What the evidence supports: Mills says several Lhota villages held land grants from Ahom rulers. He thinks the grants came with an agreement to stop raids on Assamese people.
What remains unknown: This passage does not give the grant texts, dates or plots. It does not show what rights changed or what happened to people who used the land before.
What is needed next: Find a grant and examine which rights it changed. Keep a grant separate from proof that prior users were forced out.

J. P. Mills, The Lhota Nagas (1922), Part I, pp. 1–2, introduction. Gutenberg transcription; print-image comparison unverified.

Link to this entry

Mills reports that Pangti was burned

Place and era: Pangti in the Naga Hills, northeast India. Mills links the fire to the 1875 attack on Butler.
What the evidence supports: Mills says Pangti was burned after an attack that fatally wounded Captain Butler. He says Lakhuti escaped punishment.
What remains unknown: This passage does not name the people who burned the village or say which homes were lost. It does not give the later fate of the residents or a separate date for the fire.
What is needed next: Examine what loss of homes or use the account supports. A later owner or a distant place of refuge is not required.

J. P. Mills, The Lhota Nagas (1922), Part I, p. 2, the Butler ambush account. Gutenberg transcription; print-image comparison unverified.

Link to this entry

New rule over Ndrung villages

Place and era: The left bank of the Doyang, northeast India. Mills dates the annexation to 1878.
What the evidence supports: Mills says a stockade was set up at Wokha in 1878 and the Ndrung villages were annexed. He places those villages on the left bank of the Doyang.
What remains unknown: The passage does not list all the villages or explain which land rights changed. It does not establish that residents were expelled or made to work.
What is needed next: Examine which places came under new rule and how control changed. Keep rule over a territory separate from ownership of each plot.

J. P. Mills, The Lhota Nagas (1922), Part I, pp. 2–3 and note 5. Gutenberg transcription; print-image comparison unverified.

Link to this entry

Reported attack and burned homes at Fay Tolton

Place and era: Fay Tolton village (39ST11), South Dakota. The chapter does not give the date of the attack.
What the evidence supports: LeBeau reports unburied dead people in burned houses. One person had a projectile embedded in her lower leg. He reads these finds as signs of a successful attack.
What remains unknown: The chapter does not name the attackers or give an exact date. It does not describe what happened to other residents. Some absent bones have more than one possible explanation.
What is needed next: Examine what loss of home use the evidence supports. Keep older injuries and disputed bone changes separate.

Albert M. LeBeau III, “Ditches or Earthworks: A Reexamination of Fortified Villages on the Upper Missouri River”, in Andrew J. Clark and Douglas B. Bamforth (eds.), Archaeological Perspectives on Warfare on the Great Plains (2018), chapter 6, pp. 177–189; Fay Tolton positive locus pp. 186–187 (PDF physical pp. 195–196). DOI: 10.5876/9781607326700.c006.

Link to this entry

Rout and organized withdrawal: residence-use link open

Place and era: The chapter transmits comparative movement accounts. The historical encounter, home and destination geography and event dates are unknown.
What the evidence supports: The chapter reports a defeated force fleeing under pursuit and a force withdrawing in order while carrying casualties. These remain distinct positive descriptions, not two counted events or proof of home clearance.
What remains unknown: Whether the descriptions are alternatives or related parts of one process is unresolved. The account does not establish a loss of continuing camp, refuge, home or territorial use from movement alone.
What is needed next: Keep rout/pursuit and ordered casualty-carrying withdrawal together. Examine their source-attested relation to continuing residence or use without inventing a camp-clearance link.

Keyser, James D. 2018. Warriors and Weapons: Late Prehistoric/Protohistoric–Period Warfare in Bear Gulch Rock Art. In Archaeological Perspectives on Warfare on the Great Plains, edited by Andrew J. Clark and Douglas B. Bamforth, pp.66–119. University Press of Colorado, Louisville. DOI:10.5876/9781607326700.c003. Research locus: KBG-L06.

Link to this entry

Butte refuge under assault: constrained use

Place and era: Keyser transmits a butte-refuge account placed around 1740 by the source. The historical refuge and encounter geography are not assigned; the date is context only.
What the evidence supports: In the Bear’s Arm account transmitted by Keyser, warriors assault enemies using a butte as refuge. the atlas assessment infers pressure on that refuge use during the assault.
What remains unknown: The assault’s success, later access and fate of the occupants are unknown. The account does not establish their prior home or why they first sought refuge.
What is needed next: Keep the source-attributed refuge-use question narrow. Distinguish pressure during assault from eviction, seizure, later exclusion and the cause of earlier refuge-taking.

Link to this entry

Cemetery and home use at Buckeye Knoll

Place and era: Buckeye Knoll, near Victoria, Texas. The early cemetery is dated to about 7,500–6,200 calibrated years before present.
What the evidence supports: Ricklis reports an early cemetery and very little overlap between its burial dates and dates from household remains. He reads this as a place set aside for burial. The early skeletal sample had little injury.
What remains unknown: This does not show that residents were forced out or denied use of land. Ricklis’s link between cemeteries and group control of land is conditional. The start of exclusive use and any short overlap remain uncertain.
What is needed next: Ask how burial and home use were arranged, and whether anyone lost access or control. Keep that question separate from the later injured person.

Robert A. Ricklis, “New Perspectives on the Archaic of the Texas Coastal Plain: The Buckeye Knoll Site (41VT98) on the Lower Guadalupe River near Victoria, Texas”, Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 82 (2011), pp. 31–76. Early cemetery and use discussion pp.39–46; conditional territoriality pp.66–70.

Link to this entry

Bear Gulch V-neck captives: unresolved overlap

Place and era: Bear Gulch locates the art, not a home or encounter. V-neck/style chronology is source context; no particular event date or single research era is assigned.
What the evidence supports: Keyser interprets V-neck compositions as women and children held captive. The reported six captives are depicted figures, not a census. Hand signs can also mark coup touching or trophy taking.
What remains unknown: Which figures or compositions repeat the specific tally is unresolved. Historical identities, homes, encounter places, destinations and later outcomes are unknown.
What is needed next: Keep both original questions open. Distinguish full human-capture readings from other hand meanings, and resolve composition overlap before treating any branch as additive.

Link to this entry

Burial 25 and its unknown effect on home use

Place and era: Buckeye Knoll, near Victoria, Texas. Ricklis places Burial 25 in the Late Archaic, later than the main early cemetery. No exact death date is set.
What the evidence supports: Ricklis reports a dart point in the right shoulder blade of the person in Burial 25. He treats it as a projectile-caused death. This burial is later than the main early cemetery.
What remains unknown: The article does not identify an attacker or describe an attack on homes. It does not say whether this injury led anyone to leave or lose access to land.
What is needed next: Ask what happened around this injury and whether it changed anyone’s use of a home or land. Do not extend it to the early cemetery.

Robert A. Ricklis, “New Perspectives on the Archaic of the Texas Coastal Plain: The Buckeye Knoll Site (41VT98) on the Lower Guadalupe River near Victoria, Texas”, Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society 82 (2011), pp. 31–76. Burial 25 stratigraphy p.35 and projectile injury contrast p.46.

Link to this entry

Bear Gulch tally: interpreted captive control

Place and era: Bear Gulch is the art location. Keyser describes the tally as pre-horse/pre-gun Protohistoric; the historical encounter place and date are unknown.
What the evidence supports: Keyser reads two female figures beneath a bow-spear in one Bear Gulch tally as captive women under control. The figure count is not a census, and repeated weapons do not count separate captures.
What remains unknown: Their home community, encounter place, route, destination and later fate are unknown. The tally may record several actions, and its captive imagery may overlap the broader V-neck set.
What is needed next: Retain the narrow captive-control question and the minimum constraint on remaining or leaving inferred by the atlas assessment. Keep the V-neck overlap unresolved; do not infer home eviction or add the depicted figures.

Link to this entry

Isolated camp attacks: process boundary unresolved

Place and era: Keyser transmits comparative camp-attack accounts. Historical camp and encounter geography and dates are not assigned.
What the evidence supports: Keyser transmits reports of attacks on isolated camps. the atlas assessment infers physical pressure on occupied camp use; which attacks belong to a bounded process remains unresolved.
What remains unknown: The process boundary, association among attacks and tactical accounts, and extent of camp-use interruption are unresolved. Evacuation, later control and permanent loss are not established.
What is needed next: Identify an already attested boundary or a precise source-clause attribution for the reported camp attacks. Do not invent camp episodes or join them to rout and withdrawal accounts.

Link to this entry

No Water panel: interpreted human capture

Place and era: No Water is the art location. Keyser captions panel 3.19e as Prehistoric; the represented encounter place and exact date are unknown.
What the evidence supports: Keyser identifies panel 3.19e at No Water as capture of a woman. Neighboring panels show weapon taking and supply no extra human-capture event.
What remains unknown: The captive and captor communities, encounter location, prior home, destination and later fate are unknown. A distinct art panel or site does not establish historical independence.
What is needed next: Retain the source-qualified human-capture question and the minimum location constraint inferred by the atlas assessment. Keep weapon taking, historical overlap and unknown residential history distinct.

Link to this entry

Simhavishnu and the Chola conquest

Place and era: The Chola kingdom and Kaveri banks, as the book describes them. Proposed dates remain estimates.
What the evidence supports: The book says Simhavishnu conquered the Chola kingdom and took possession of the Kaveri banks.
What remains unknown: The extent and duration of control remain unclear. Prior rights and resident fates remain unknown.
What is needed next: Assess the reported transfer of control over the named land.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan; English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter III, The Pallavas. Printed 66–69 / physical 70–73.

Link to this entry

Southern conquests under Samudragupta

Place and era: The author places the campaign in Southern Kosala and on the east coast. Its dates and route remain disputed.
What the evidence supports: The book reports conquest, the capture and release of kings, and later withdrawal. The author reconstructs the retreat and its cause.
What remains unknown: The extent and duration of control remain unknown. The chapter does not establish what happened to the residents.
What is needed next: Assess the temporary control of named places and the relation between parts of the campaign.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan; English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter III, The Pallavas. Printed 58–61 / physical 62–65.

Link to this entry

Early Pallava records of an order and gifts

Place and era: Dhannakada and the places named in three early Pallava records. Exact event dates remain unknown.
What the evidence supports: The book describes an order, a gift confirmation, and another grant. The author uses these records to study a royal family.
What remains unknown: The terms and land effects of each act remain unclear here. These notices do not establish one shared event.
What is needed next: Examine what each order or gift changed for land and its users.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan; English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter III, The Pallavas. Printed 52–53 / physical 56–57.

Link to this entry

A royal marriage and rule at Kanchi

Place and era: Kanchi, in the account of early Pallava rule. Proposed dates remain uncertain.
What the evidence supports: Jouveau-Dubreuil interprets a royal marriage tradition as a path to rule at Kanchi. His argument concerns a royal family.
What remains unknown: This does not establish a mass arrival or a forced marriage. What changed for prior rulers and land users is unknown.
What is needed next: Assess the reported accession and the prior control of land.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan; English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter III, The Pallavas. Printed 47–57 / physical 51–61.

Link to this entry

A battle ally and his reported death

Place and era: Eran names the inscription account used here. It does not fix the battle or death site.
What the evidence supports: The book reports Goparaja's alliance in a battle and his death. The account is tied to an Eran inscription.
What remains unknown: The genealogy does not prove he ruled Sarabha. His death does not by itself show a conquest, a civilian toll or a forced departure.
What is needed next: Assess any bounded change in land control or residence.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan. English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter IV, The dynasties of Central Deccan. Printed pp. 76 and 78; PDF pp. 80 and 82.

Link to this entry

Possession of the Western Satrap kingdom

Place and era: The Western Satrap kingdom, as named in the book. Its exact bounds remain open.
What the evidence supports: The book reports Chandragupta II's possession of this kingdom. It uses that claim to date a marriage.
What remains unknown: The book does not show how control was gained. A change of ruler does not show a change of population. This is distinct from the earlier Gautamiputra question.
What is needed next: Assess how control was gained and what land it covered.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan. English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter IV, The dynasties of Central Deccan. Printed pp. 73; PDF pp. 77.

Link to this entry

A proposed installation of a ruler at Vengi

Place and era: Vengi is the proposed seat of rule. The date of the proposed change remains uncertain.
What the evidence supports: The author proposes that Madhavavarman I was set up to rule Vengi. He uses a legend and marriages. He also makes a case about territory. Chapter VI also says the old kingdom was probably taken with Vakataka help. The author thinks it very probable that they removed its rulers and set up the new king.
What remains unknown: The printed names of the princess do not agree. The imposed change in control is still a question. A mass move of people is not shown. The new argument uses a deity, marriage and praise. Eleven sacrifices do not mean eleven battles.
What is needed next: Assess the proposed change in rule and land control. Keep the legend and both qualified claims distinct.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan. English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter IV, The dynasties of Central Deccan. Printed pp. 74; PDF pp. 78. | G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VI, printed pp. 89, 90, 91 (physical PDF pp. 93, 94, 95). Qualified Salankayana replacement and Madhavavarman installation.

Link to this entry

Claims of expansion across seven regions

Place and era: The book names Kuntala, Avanti and Kalinga. It also names Kosala, Trikuta, Lata and Andhra. Their bounds and event dates remain uncertain.
What the evidence supports: The book links claims for Harishena to an Ajanta record. It lists seven regions. The author also proposes probable campaigns. Chapter V says Harishena conquered Traikuta. Chapter VI also cites his Andhra victory claim. His place in the coalition remains a suggestion.
What remains unknown: Seven regions do not mean seven separate events. The printed names Harivarman and Harishena differ. A gap in later records does not prove the Traikutas were destroyed. Taking or subordinating political control is the atlas assessment's minimum inference from that claim. This finding concerns Traikuta alone; its date, bounds and civilian effects remain open. The Andhra claim does not show that he joined this fight or that both claims concern one event.
What is needed next: Prepare the Traikuta assessment. Keep the other six claims as open research questions. Assess the Andhra link as a separate open question.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan. English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter IV, The dynasties of Central Deccan. Printed pp. 76; PDF pp. 80. | G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan. English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter V, The dynasties of Western Deccan. Printed p. 81; PDF p. 85. | G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VI, printed pp. 91, 92 (physical PDF pp. 95, 96). Possible Harishena coalition membership and Andhra claim.

Link to this entry

Later possession and a proposed change of ruling house

Place and era: The book describes land between Nasik and Ujjain. The date of the proposed change remains uncertain.
What the evidence supports: The book states that the Kalachuris later held this land. It proposes that they replaced the Vakatakas around the middle of the sixth century. Chapter V names Ujjain as Samkaragana's capital and reports his rule over the Nasik region. It describes Nirihullaka as his subordinate chief in the lower Narbada valley.
What remains unknown: Possession and the proposed replacement are distinct claims. A change of ruling house does not show a mass arrival or expulsion. Bounds and effects remain open. These authority reports do not establish how that rule began or prove the proposed replacement.
What is needed next: Assess the reported rule and any change in it. Keep the origin of that rule and the subordinate relation open.

Link to this entry

Reports of honored royal commands

Place and era: Kosala, Mekala and Malava are named in the book. No fixed land bounds or event date is set here.
What the evidence supports: The book says the lords of those regions honored Narendrasena's commands. This is a positive claim of royal power.
What remains unknown: The words do not list conquests or forced moves. They do not prove one shared event. The author's view of a lost throne is context here. It does not by itself show an expulsion.
What is needed next: Assess what the words show about bounded control of land.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan. English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter IV, The dynasties of Central Deccan. Printed pp. 75; PDF pp. 79.

Link to this entry

A temple grant with the asset unknown

Place and era: The book cites the Undivatika plates. It does not fix the place affected by the grant.
What the evidence supports: The book reports a grant to a temple. This paragraph does not say that the gift was land.
What remains unknown: The asset and its effect on prior users remain unknown. No other grant can fill that gap. The author's rough capital coordinates do not fix this grant's site.
What is needed next: Identify the gift and any change in land use or control.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan. English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter IV, The dynasties of Central Deccan. Printed pp. 77; PDF pp. 81.

Link to this entry

A queen's land grant

Place and era: The book covers the Central Deccan. It places the grant when Divakarasena was a minor. The tract and event year are not set here.
What the evidence supports: The book reports that Queen Prabhavati gave land. It cites Pathak's plates.
What remains unknown: The tract, recipient, prior use and effects of the grant remain open. This is still a positive report of a land grant.
What is needed next: Assess the grant and any change in land control or use.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan. English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter IV, The dynasties of Central Deccan. Printed pp. 73; PDF pp. 77.

Link to this entry

Rudrabhuti's reported donation

Place and era: The book cites a Western Kshatrapa inscription dated 181 AD / S. 103. No affected tract is named.
What the evidence supports: The book says General Rudrabhuti, an Abhira and son of General Bahaka, made a donation.
What remains unknown: The asset, recipient and effects are not stated here. A donation does not by itself establish a land grant or imposed loss.
What is needed next: Assess what was given and any change in land control, use or residence.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan. English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter V, The dynasties of Western Deccan. Printed p. 80; PDF p. 84.

Link to this entry

An Abhira ruler and a proposed kingdom

Place and era: The author proposes a kingdom in Kathiawar and the Nasik region in the mid-third century. Coin findspots are not population routes.
What the evidence supports: The book asks whether Isvarasena was the coin king Isvaradatta. It suggests that Isvarasena founded the dynasty.
What remains unknown: The ruler identity and a particular taking of control remain unresolved. No royal title for his father does not prove that the father was not king.
What is needed next: Assess the ruler identification and whether the proposed formation involved a bounded taking of control.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil (1920), Ancient History of the Deccan. English translation by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar. Chapter V, The dynasties of Western Deccan. Printed p. 80; PDF p. 84.

Link to this entry

A field grant in Gudravara

Place and era: The book places the field in Gudravara district. It gives no fixed field boundary or event year here.
What the evidence supports: The book reports a field grant by Bhima II. This is the third of four cited records.
What remains unknown: The passage does not identify the field or its prior rights holders. It does not state what changed for those who used it.
What is needed next: Find this separate grant and assess any imposed loss of rights.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VI, printed pp. 85 (physical PDF pp. 89). Bhima II’s field grant in Gudravara.

Link to this entry

Land loss among poorer residents in Yakutia

Place and era: Yakutia, in the article's nineteenth-century setting. The date of the reported inquiry is not given.
What the evidence supports: Nikitina reports a study's findings. It found that the existing system left poorer residents without land. It also linked abuses to the elders' court powers.
What remains unknown: The article does not trace the steps or sequence of this land loss. It does not pin down the poorer residents and land affected. It does not show that later reforms or a 1909 status order caused this loss or a physical move.
What is needed next: Trace the study or other evidence to find how land was lost and which residents were affected.

С. Е. Никитина, «Реформы местного управления Якутской области в государственном устройстве Российской империи в XIX в.», Новые исследования Тувы, №2 (2010), hosted article, paragraph on the Kondakov/Mainov study. Archive locus as cited in the article: НА РС(Я). Ф.12. Оп.6. Д.74. Л.8.

Link to this entry

An order to people in Gudravara

Place and era: The order names Gudravara district. The book uses it to help place the old district. No event year is set.
What the evidence supports: The book lists an order from Amma II to people who lived there. This is the first of four cited records.
What remains unknown: The passage does not say what the order required. It does not show a loss of land rights or a forced move.
What is needed next: Find what the order required and assess its effects on land use or control.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VI, printed pp. 85 (physical PDF pp. 89). Amma II’s order to Gudravara residents.

Link to this entry

The grant of Pantura village

Place and era: The book places Pantura in Kudurahara. Its link to modern Panduru is tentative. No event year is set.
What the evidence supports: The book says Jayavarman granted this village. It gives his tenth year of rule.
What remains unknown: The passage does not state the full grant terms or prior rights. It does not show what changed for those who held or used the land.
What is needed next: Find the grant terms and assess any imposed loss of land rights.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VI, printed pp. 84 (physical PDF pp. 88). Jayavarman’s Pantura village grant.

Link to this entry

Land granted to a chief for work on a town

Place and era: The book places the land by Pambarru and near Ghantasala. Its place links remain source claims. No event year is set.
What the evidence supports: The book says Amma II granted land to a chief. It credits him with work to improve Gudravara.
What remains unknown: The stated reward does not show that the work cleared homes. Prior rights and the grant outcome remain unclear.
What is needed next: Find the grant terms and assess what changed for prior holders.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VI, printed pp. 85 (physical PDF pp. 89). Amma II’s land grant for town improvement.

Link to this entry

Departure from SunWatch village

Place and era: SunWatch is near Dayton, Ohio. The chapter dates the village to the early to middle 1200s AD. It says people lived there for about 15–20 years.
What the evidence supports: The chapter reports that the villagers left SunWatch. It suggests several likely pressures: less firewood, worn houses, waste problems, poorer soil and insect damage to crops. A fire in the northeast part of the village possibly hastened their departure.
What remains unknown: The chapter does not establish that anyone forced the villagers to leave. It also does not establish that everyone left freely. It does not identify who or what started the fire.
What is needed next: Ask whether the evidence shows an imposed loss of homes or land use, or supports a limit on that claim. Keep that question open.

Christopher A. Turnbow, with revisions by Sandra Yee, “Stop 4: SunWatch Archaeological Site—Venturing Back in Time,” in Timothy S. Dalbey, editor, Geological Aspects of Key Archaeological Sites in Northern Kentucky and Southern Ohio, Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Guidebook No. 11 (2007), pp. 66–71. Abandonment: p. 71.

Link to this entry

The grant of Trandaparu village

Place and era: The book places this village in Gudravara district. Its bounds and event date remain uncertain.
What the evidence supports: The book says Vijayaditya III made a grant of this village. This is the second of four cited records.
What remains unknown: The passage does not state the full rights granted or who held them before. The outcome for those who used the land is not given.
What is needed next: Find this grant and assess the rights it changed.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VI, printed pp. 85 (physical PDF pp. 89). Vijayaditya III’s Trandaparu village grant.

Link to this entry

The chiefs who joined against the king Indrabhattaraka

Place and era: The book places this claim in the eastern Deccan. The battle site and event year are not fixed.
What the evidence supports: The book reports chiefs allied to remove the king by force. It says his elephant was struck down. The author still thinks he won, based on a land grant.
What remains unknown: The battle result and the grant timing are unresolved. The passage gives no human death count. What control changed in the conflict is not clear.
What is needed next: Keep both claims. Resolve the grant timing and assess what control changed.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VI, printed pp. 91 (physical PDF pp. 95). The forceful alliance against Indrabhattaraka.

Link to this entry

A king's wish to take the eastern land

Place and era: The book names a crossing of the Godavari. The eastern tract and event year remain uncertain.
What the evidence supports: The book reports that Madhavavarman II crossed the Godavari. He wanted to conquer the eastern region.
What remains unknown: The stated aim does not show that the conquest took place. The author says the crossing probably came shortly before a different invasion.
What is needed next: Find whether the crossing led to a change in land control.

G. Jouveau-Dubreuil, Ancient History of the Deccan, translated by V. S. Swaminadha Dikshitar (1920), Chapter VI, printed pp. 92 (physical PDF pp. 96). Madhavavarman II’s Godavari crossing and conquest intention.

Link to this entry

Cases awaiting map locations

These cases already appear in the atlas. Their maps have no placed endpoints. This is a map question, not a new admission decision.

ADF attack-driven displacement from Beni Territory and nearby Ituri villages, January–March 2021

Place and era: Central Africa; January–19 March 2021
What the atlas records: UNHCR reports deaths, injuries and displacement from attacks blamed on the ADF in Beni and nearby Ituri.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Akosombo Dam flooding and Volta Basin resettlement

Place and era: Africa; 1961–1966
What the atlas records: The Volta reservoir displaced people from homes and farms upstream of the Akosombo Dam.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Anfal campaign against Iraqi Kurds

Place and era: Middle East and North Africa; 1987–1989
What the atlas records: Human Rights Watch describes village destruction, killings, detention and forced relocation during Anfal.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Anti-Greek pogrom in Istanbul

Place and era: Europe / Middle East; 6–7 September 1955
What the atlas records: Organized anti-Greek violence struck Greek residents and communal institutions in Istanbul.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Anti-Tutsi violence, exile and blocked return in Rwanda

Place and era: Africa; 1959–1973 (successive waves; exile continued)
What the atlas records: Violence forced Tutsi people to flee Rwanda in several waves.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Arab-Muslim conquest of Egypt and establishment of Fusṭāṭ

Place and era: Middle East & North Africa; late 639/early 640–646 CE
What the atlas records: John of Nikiu describes dispossession, flight and forced supplies during the conquest of Egypt.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Argentine conquest and Indigenous confinement in the Chaco

Place and era: Latin America; 1884–1917
What the atlas records: Argentine campaigns and private land seizures restricted Indigenous access to rivers and food sources in the Chaco.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Armenian genocide deportations and forced removal

Place and era: Europe / Middle East; spring 1915–fall 1916
What the atlas records: The Ottoman government began to deport Armenians from border regions, then extended deportations to almost all provinces.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

August 2008 South Ossetia war, conflict flight, and post-ceasefire forced displacement and destruction

Place and era: Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia; 2008 CE
What the atlas records: The inquiry records civilian flight, forced moves and destruction of ethnic Georgian settlements during and after the war.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Australian Stolen Generations child removals

Place and era: Australia; c. 1910–1970
What the atlas records: Australian governments and missions removed Indigenous children from their families and placed them in institutions or other homes.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Bosnian Serb common plan to remove Muslims and Croats from claimed territory

Place and era: Europe; October 1991–30 November 1995
What the atlas records: The ICTY found a common plan to remove Bosnian Muslims and Croats from territory claimed by Bosnian Serbs through crimes.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Bougainville conflict displacement

Place and era: Melanesia; December 1988 escalation; conflict described as 1989–1997; peace marker in 1997
What the atlas records: Testimony describes civilian moves to government centers, forests and places abroad during the Bougainville conflict.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

British annexation, phosphate-company settlement, and indentured migrant labour on Christmas Island

Place and era: Indian Ocean; From 1888; terminal year unresolved
What the atlas records: Parks Australia describes indentured migrant workers in phosphate mines and deaths linked to inadequate food.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Bukhara: surrender, forced dispersal and military levy

Place and era: Russia & Central Asia; February–March 1220
What the atlas records: Jackson reports that Bukhara residents lost property, were driven out, and were taken away for Mongol forces.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Bulgarian assimilation campaign and forced migration of Turks

Place and era: Southeastern Europe; 1984–1989
What the atlas records: Kutlay reports forced migration of Turks from Bulgaria to Turkey after state restrictions, followed by some voluntary return.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Burundi civil war and renewed mass displacement

Place and era: Great Lakes Africa; 1993–2005
What the atlas records: UNHCR reports that civil war in Burundi forced people abroad and displaced civilians within the country.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Cambodian refugees forced back at Preah Vihear

Place and era: South & Southeast Asia; June 1979
What the atlas records: Thai soldiers forced Cambodian refugees down the mountainside at Preah Vihear into Cambodia.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Captives placed at Tīl-karme

Place and era: Middle East & North Africa; Conventionally 738 BCE; actual transfer date uncertain
What the atlas records: The royal account reports that captives were placed at a named settlement and assigned work duties.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Circeii under Volscian control (source-qualified)

Place and era: Europe; early fifth century BCE (precise capture year unresolved)
What the atlas records: The historian reads the Coriolanus tradition as possible evidence of a Volscian takeover of Circeii.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Civil-war displacement within and from Sierra Leone

Place and era: West Africa; 1991–2002
What the atlas records: The truth commission describes attacks, threats and property destruction that repeatedly drove civilians from homes in Sierra Leone.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Cocos (Keeling) estate settlement and controlled labor

Place and era: Indian Ocean; From 1827; end unresolved
What the atlas records: The Cocos estate tied workers and families to its authority, store currency and control of where they lived.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Colonial phosphate extraction and destruction of Nauruan land

Place and era: Pacific & Oceania; 1906–1968
What the atlas records: Colonial mines stripped Nauruan land to supply fertilizer abroad.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Compulsory Ujamaa villagization in Tanzania

Place and era: Africa; 1973–1976
What the atlas records: The state party directed rural people to live in villages by 1976.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Coordinated Soviet deportation from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, 13-14 June 1941

Place and era: Europe / Russia and Central Asia; 1941 CE
What the atlas records: Soviet security forces deported people from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Crown and Royal Navy slave-trade interception and Liberated African depot system on St Helena, 1840–1868

Place and era: Atlantic Islands; 1840–1868 CE
What the atlas records: The Royal Navy brought Africans from intercepted slave ships to St Helena.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Culebra: resident relocation for a naval range

Place and era: Caribbean; 1901–1975
What the atlas records: The United States placed Culebra under Navy control and required residents to move outside the target zone.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Deportation of German residents from Lithuania

Place and era: Europe / Russia and Central Asia; 1945
What the atlas records: Soviet authorities deported German residents of Lithuania to Siberia and Kazakhstan.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Deportation of German-origin residents from Estonia

Place and era: Europe / Russia and Central Asia; 15 August 1945
What the atlas records: Soviet authorities deported people of German origin from Estonia to the Soviet interior.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Deportation of South Sea Islanders from Australia

Place and era: Pacific & Oceania; Late 1906–1908
What the atlas records: The Australian government required most South Sea Island workers to leave under the White Australia policy.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Deportation of the Balkars and authorization to return

Place and era: Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia; 1944–1957
What the atlas records: Soviet authorities removed Balkars from their North Caucasian homeland to Kazakhstan and Kirghizia.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Deportation of the Karachays and the difficult return from exile

Place and era: Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia; From 1943 — end unresolved
What the atlas records: The NKVD deported Karachays from their homeland to special settlements in Soviet eastern regions.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Derg resettlement and compulsory villagization in Ethiopia

Place and era: Africa; 1978–1991
What the atlas records: The Ethiopian Derg government forced rural people to move to control people and land.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Detention and forced return of recognized Nong Khai Lao Hmong refugees

Place and era: Southeast Asia; 17 November 2006–28 December 2009 CE
What the atlas records: Thai authorities detained Lao Hmong refugees recognized by UNHCR for deportation.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Drainage and forced displacement of Iraq's Marsh Arabs

Place and era: Middle East and North Africa; 1991–2003
What the atlas records: Human Rights Watch reports that state drainage policies destroyed Marsh Arab livelihoods and forced residents from home.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Enslaved labor in the English and East India Company colony on St Helena

Place and era: Africa; 1659–1839; emancipation in 1836, legal clarification in 1839
What the atlas records: The East India Company and private traders brought captives to St Helena, where enslaved people worked under restrictive laws.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Eritrean internment and expulsion of Ethiopian residents

Place and era: Horn of Africa; 1998–2000
What the atlas records: Ethiopians in Eritrea faced hardship, threats, confinement and forced departure during the war.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Ethiopian expulsion of Eritrean-designated civilians

Place and era: Horn of Africa; 1998–2000
What the atlas records: Ethiopian authorities began arrests and expulsions during the war with Eritrea.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Expulsion of Greek citizens from Istanbul and restrictions on their assets

Place and era: Europe / Middle East; 1964
What the atlas records: The Turkish government began to expel Greeks who held Greek citizenship.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Expulsion of Jews from Castile and Aragon

Place and era: Europe; 1492
What the atlas records: Isabella and Ferdinand issued an order for Jewish residents to leave their realms.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Expulsion of Lhotshampa from Bhutan

Place and era: South Asia; 1988–1993
What the atlas records: Amnesty reports threats, abuse and state pressure that drove Lhotshampa families from Bhutan.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Expulsion of the Moriscos from Spain

Place and era: Europe; 1609–1614
What the atlas records: The Spanish monarchy expelled Morisco communities through a series of regional orders.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Expulsion, partial return, and continuing displacement of Tawergha residents

Place and era: North Africa; 2011–2025
What the atlas records: An OHCHR inquiry reports attacks, abuses and the destruction of Tawergha, whose residents were displaced.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Fiji-bound coerced or deceptively recruited Pacific Island labor removal, October 1864–10 October 1874

Place and era: Pacific and Oceania; October 1864–10 October 1874
What the atlas records: Historical accounts document coercion and abduction in the labor trade that brought Pacific Islanders to Fiji.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

First Congo War and destruction of refugee camps in eastern Zaire

Place and era: Great Lakes Africa; 1996–1997
What the atlas records: AFDL forces and their Rwandan allies attacked refugee camps in eastern Zaire.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

First Liberian civil-war displacement, December 1989–1997

Place and era: Africa; December 1989–1997
What the atlas records: UNHCR describes property destruction and violence that drove civilians to flee within Liberia and across its borders.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Forced Muslim exodus from Strumnitsa

Place and era: Europe; August 1913
What the atlas records: Greek authorities ordered Muslim residents of Strumnitsa and nearby villages to leave for Greek territory.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

French abandonment, reprisal, flight, transfer, and camp confinement of former Harkis and their families

Place and era: North Africa and Europe; From 1961; terminal year unresolved
What the atlas records: Sources report killings, imprisonment and dispossession of former Harkis and families, with flight and later camp confinement.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Fushu transferred from Mutsu

Place and era: East Asia; 725 CE; intercalary first month, fourth day (chronicle notice)
What the atlas records: A Japanese court record states that fushu were moved from Mutsu to Iyo, Izumi and other provinces.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Georgian and Ossetian displacement during the South Ossetia conflict, 1991–1992

Place and era: Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia; 1991–1992 CE
What the atlas records: Crisis Group reports Ossetians displaced from Georgia and Georgians displaced from South Ossetia, with some property claims unresolved.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Greek destruction and Bulgarian exodus from Kukush to the Bulgarian frontier

Place and era: Europe; 1913 CE
What the atlas records: The Carnegie Commission attributes arson, evictions and civilian flight at Kukush to Greek soldiers.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Guatemalan civil-war displacement and refuge in Mexico

Place and era: Latin America; 1960–1996
What the atlas records: UNHCR reports killings and disappearances as army attacks drove Indigenous people from their homes.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Herat after the revolt: punitive reconquest

Place and era: Central Asia; 1221–1222 CE
What the atlas records: Jackson describes mass slaughter, enslavement of some women and fires during the punitive recapture of Herat.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Herat weavers: removal and return orders

Place and era: Russia & Central Asia; 1221–c. 1240 CE
What the atlas records: Tolui removed weaver households from Herat and sent them to Beshbaliq.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Highveld Difaqane warfare, refuge, and state formation

Place and era: Southern Africa; c. 1810–1840
What the atlas records: War and raids uprooted Highveld communities and changed control of land, cattle and people.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Hmong asylum seekers pushed back to Laos

Place and era: South & Southeast Asia; 1986
What the atlas records: A report states that Hmong refugees were pushed back from Thailand to Laos in 1986.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Huguenot exile after the Revocation

Place and era: Europe; 1685–1715
What the atlas records: Louis XIV revoked Protestant rights, banned their worship and ordered their churches destroyed.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

HVO/Herceg-Bosna program against Bosnian Muslims

Place and era: Europe; mid-January 1993–April 1994 CE
What the atlas records: The ICTY found that leaders of Herceg-Bosna pursued Croat control through crimes that changed the ethnic composition of its territory.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Isaaq civilian clearance in northern Somalia

Place and era: Horn of Africa; 1988–1991
What the atlas records: Somali government forces bombed Hargeisa and attacked civilians in flight after rebels captured parts of the city.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Japanese occupation-government forced repatriation and depopulation of Hong Kong, December 1941–August 1945

Place and era: East Asia; 1941–1945 CE
What the atlas records: An occupation history reports street arrests, forced removal and people left to die under Japanese rule.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Japanese wartime deportation of Nauruans to Chuuk

Place and era: Pacific & Oceania; 1943–1946
What the atlas records: Japanese authorities deported Nauruans to the Truk group in two transfers.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Javanese contract migration to Suriname

Place and era: Latin America; 1890–1930; contract-migration phase, with later contract expiry
What the atlas records: Javanese workers first arrived under contract at a plantation in Suriname in 1890.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Judeans deported to Babylonia

Place and era: West Asia; 597 and 587/586 BCE; two separate deportation phases
What the atlas records: Babylonian conquests of Jerusalem led to two waves of deportation.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Kaptai Dam: reservoir flooding and displacement

Place and era: South & Southeast Asia; 1957–1964
What the atlas records: The Kaptai dam project flooded homes and farms in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Karelian evacuation, return and renewed displacement

Place and era: Northern Europe; 1939–1944
What the atlas records: War displaced Karelian residents from territory Finland ceded to the Soviet Union.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Khmer Rouge urban evacuation and nationwide forced displacement in Cambodia, 1975–1979

Place and era: Southeast Asia and the Pacific; 17 April 1975–early 1979
What the atlas records: Khmer Rouge forces entered Phnom Penh and systematically emptied the city.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Killing and displacement at Boulgar-Keui and Pichman-Keui

Place and era: Europe; 1913
What the atlas records: Ottoman forces inflicted violence, plunder and displacement on Bulgarian villagers in eastern Thrace.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Kitakami campaigns and fortified administration

Place and era: East Asia; 774–811 CE (campaign sequence with reversals)
What the atlas records: Friday describes attacks that drove Emishi from their strongholds, alongside frontier settlement and local resistance.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Kololo conquest and rule in Barotseland

Place and era: Africa; c. 1838–1864
What the atlas records: Kololo conquest drove some Lozi and members of their royal families to flee the valley.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Korean War civilian flight and permanent division

Place and era: East Asia; 1950–1953
What the atlas records: The Korean War drove civilians from their homes in more than one wave.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Lachin capture and Azerbaijani civilian displacement, 17–18 May 1992

Place and era: Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia; 17–18 May 1992
What the atlas records: Villagers fled as troops advanced toward Lachin in 1992.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Land-law exclusion and migrant ejection in Tabou

Place and era: Africa; 1998
What the atlas records: Babo reports that Burkinabé migrants were ejected from land in Tabou, but does not name who removed them.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Late-April 1994 Karabakh Armenian front-line displacement

Place and era: Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia; 1994 CE
What the atlas records: Human Rights Watch links the offensive to Azerbaijani flight, with reports of indiscriminate fire and hostage capture.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

LTTE expulsion of Muslims from northern Sri Lanka

Place and era: South Asia; 1990
What the atlas records: The LTTE ordered Muslim communities out of northern Sri Lanka.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

LURD–MODEL war displacement in Liberia, July 2000–2003

Place and era: West Africa; July 2000–2003
What the atlas records: Human Rights Watch describes attacks that forced Liberian civilians from homes and abuses by government forces and LURD.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

M23-related North Kivu conflict displacement from March 2022, observed through 19 March 2024

Place and era: Central Africa; March 2022–19 March 2024 observation window
What the atlas records: UNHCR describes flight from North Kivu, loss of access to fields, and refuge in sites under pressure.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Maasai conservation evictions from Serengeti, Ngorongoro and Loliondo

Place and era: Africa; 1951–present
What the atlas records: Human Rights Watch links conservation programs to removals, loss of pasture access, and pressure on residents to leave.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Macías Nguema’s dictatorship and mass exile from Equatorial Guinea

Place and era: Central Africa; 1968–1979
What the atlas records: Tsafack describes killings and repression that drove exile and made return unsafe under Macías Nguema.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Malayan Emergency forced resettlement into New Villages

Place and era: South & Southeast Asia; 1948–1960
What the atlas records: British and Malayan officials forced rural people into new settlements meant to cut ties to communist rebels.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Merina expansion, military colonies and coerced labour

Place and era: Africa; c. 1790–1895
What the atlas records: Campbell describes Merina conquest, enslaved captives, forced labor, and groups moved to east-coast plantations.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Miskito compulsory relocation and loss of homes and land

Place and era: Latin America; December 1981–September 1983
What the atlas records: The government of Nicaragua ordered Coco River villages to move to Tasba Pri.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Mogadishu public-land and settlement evictions and relocation pressure, 2012-2013

Place and era: Horn of Africa; 2012–2013 CE
What the atlas records: The World Bank reports that authorities and private owners evicted displaced people, often without another place to go.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Mogadishu-centered conflict displacement, 2005-2009

Place and era: Horn of Africa; 2005–2009 CE
What the atlas records: The World Bank links conflict in Mogadishu to waves of people who left the city.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Mongol capture of Samarkand and removal of artisans and young men

Place and era: East & Central Asia; 1220–c. 1223 CE
What the atlas records: Juvaini reports that Mongol forces removed residents and assigned skilled survivors and young men to their forces.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Mongol retaliatory destruction of Bamiyan

Place and era: Central Asia; 1221–1222
What the atlas records: Juvaini says Chinggis Khan ordered people killed and banned future settlement after Bamiyan fell.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Mozambique: civil war and mass displacement

Place and era: Africa; 1977–1992 (record period; UNHCR dates the war’s onset to 1976)
What the atlas records: Mozambican civilians fled a war between the FRELIMO government and RENAMO rebels.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Muslim expulsion from Portugal

Place and era: Europe; 1496–1497
What the atlas records: King Manuel I issued an order to expel people from Portugal.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Mutsu: frontier reorganization and fortified settlement

Place and era: East Asia; 720–724 CE (post-uprising institutional sequence)
What the atlas records: Kumagai describes new counties and immigrant placement in Mutsu after the revolt.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Navy expropriation and resident relocation on Vieques

Place and era: Latin America; 1941–2003
What the atlas records: The United States acquired land on Vieques for Navy bases through forced sale and purchase.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Nazi and Axis genocide of Roma and Sinti

Place and era: Europe; 1939–1945
What the atlas records: Nazi German authorities subjected European Roma and Sinti to camps, forced labor, deportation and mass murder.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Nazi arrests and deportations of Jersey residents to mainland prisons and camps, 1942–1945

Place and era: Western Europe; 1942–1945
What the atlas records: German authorities removed Jersey residents to mainland camps and prisons.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Nepet colonial transition

Place and era: Europe; 383 BCE commission; alternative foundation tradition 373 BCE
What the atlas records: Chiabà describes the Nepet colony as founded on land previously taken from Falerii.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Nicaragua post-2018 repression and exile

Place and era: Central America; from April 2018; observed 10 March 2020
What the atlas records: UNHCR reports that people fled Nicaragua after its political crisis amid persecution and human rights abuses.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Nicaraguan refugee flight during the anti-Somoza insurrection

Place and era: Latin America; 1978–1979
What the atlas records: Nicaraguans fled their country after the events of September 1978.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Nikephoros I’s compulsory transfer to the Balkans

Place and era: Europe; September 809–Easter 810
What the atlas records: Nikephoros I forced subjects from Asia Minor to sell their property and move to Balkan districts.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Nishapur: massacre and removal of craftspeople

Place and era: Russia & Central Asia; April 1221 CE
What the atlas records: Juvaini describes killings at Nishapur, destruction of homes and removal of skilled people to Turkestan.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Nordalbingian Saxon removal, Obodrite land grant and reversal

Place and era: Europe; 804–c. 811 CE; removal, brief land grant and reported return
What the atlas records: The army under Charlemagne removed Saxon families from beyond the Elbe and Wigmodia to Francia.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Norman conquest of England: aristocratic dispossession and the Harrying of the North

Place and era: Europe; 1066-1086
What the atlas records: The conquest changed control of English land, while accounts of the northern campaign describe famine and refugee flight.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Northern Hoa flight from Viet Nam to China

Place and era: Southeast Asia and the Pacific; 1978–1979
What the atlas records: Ethnic Chinese residents of northern Viet Nam fled to China amid hostile official policies.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Northern-iwi invasions of Ngāi Tahu communities and territory

Place and era: Pacific & Oceania; 1827–1837 CE
What the atlas records: Ngāti Toa war parties and northern allies attacked Ngāi Tahu communities in the South Island.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Nubian displacement by the Aswan dams

Place and era: Africa; 1902–1964
What the atlas records: The first Aswan Dam and its later increases in height flooded homes and farms in Egyptian Nubia.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Obstruction of Jewish return to Cisr-i Mustafa Paşa

Place and era: Europe; 1913–1914
What the atlas records: Ginio reports fires, plunder and local hostility that blocked the return of Jewish families to their town.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Okinawan land seizure and displacement for United States military bases

Place and era: East Asia; 1945–1972
What the atlas records: Okinawa Prefecture describes United States forces that took land for bases and blocked displaced residents from home.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Old Urgench: destruction and captive removal

Place and era: Russia & Central Asia; 1221–before 1232 CE
What the atlas records: Juvaini reports killings at Urgench and the forced removal of artisans, children and young women.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Operation Murambatsvina: Zimbabwe’s urban evictions

Place and era: Africa; 2005: campaign launched 19 May; aftermath documented through November
What the atlas records: Zimbabwean authorities destroyed homes and informal shops across urban areas.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Operation Osen phased deportation from Lithuania, September-November 1951

Place and era: Europe / Russia and Central Asia; September–November 1951 CE
What the atlas records: Soviet authorities rounded up households, seized property and deported families by rail to special settlements.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Operation Priboi deportation from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, March-April 1949

Place and era: Europe / Russia and Central Asia; 1949 CE
What the atlas records: Soviet forces deported households across the Baltic republics, with children removed and property seized.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Operation Ring: expulsion from Armenian villages

Place and era: Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia; 1991
What the atlas records: The European Court judgment reports that government forces expelled Armenian villagers under the pretext of passport and arms checks.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Operation Sever deportations in the Baltic republics

Place and era: Europe / Russia and Central Asia; 31 March–1 April 1951
What the atlas records: Soviet authorities carried out deportations in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania at the end of March 1951.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Operation Vesna household deportation from Lithuania

Place and era: Europe / Russia and Central Asia; 22–23 May 1948; initial transports completed afterward
What the atlas records: Operation Vesna removed households from Lithuania in 1948.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Operation Vistula deportation and dispersal

Place and era: Europe; 1947–1950
What the atlas records: Operation Vistula moved people defined as Ukrainian from southeast Poland to the north and west.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Ottoman conquest of the Balkans: surgun transfers and Yoruk-Turkmen colonization of Rumelia

Place and era: Europe; c. 1352-c. 1600
What the atlas records: Ottoman conquest brought troops, settlers and displaced people into the Balkans.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Pakistani army and auxiliary violence and displacement in East Pakistan, March–December 1971

Place and era: South Asia; 25 March–16 December 1971 CE
What the atlas records: The ICJ reports killings, destroyed homes and fear that drove people to flee within East Pakistan and toward India.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Palestinian flight from Kuwait during Iraqi occupation and Gulf War conditions, 1990–1991

Place and era: Middle East and North Africa; 1990–1991 CE
What the atlas records: Many Palestinians left Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation and Gulf War.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Partition of India and Pakistan and reciprocal mass displacement

Place and era: South Asia; 1947 and succeeding years
What the atlas records: UNHCR links the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan to mass displacement.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Peru internal armed conflict displacement

Place and era: South America; 1980–2000
What the atlas records: Violence drove civilians from homes and farms across Peru during its internal armed conflict.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Peruvian slave raids across Polynesia

Place and era: Pacific & Oceania; 1862–1864
What the atlas records: Ships from Peru carried Pacific Islanders abroad for farm labor and household service.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Philippine–American War reconcentration

Place and era: Southeast Asia; 1899–1902
What the atlas records: The United States Army issued orders to confine rural people during the Philippine-American War.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Post-liberation expulsion and residency pressure against Palestinians in Kuwait

Place and era: Middle East and North Africa; 1991
What the atlas records: Palestinians in Kuwait faced arrests, expulsions and pressure to leave after its government returned from exile.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Post-surrender violence and dispossession of Biharis in Bangladesh

Place and era: South Asia; From 1971; end unresolved
What the atlas records: After the army surrendered, Biharis faced revenge attacks in newly independent Bangladesh.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Qin relocates amnestied convicts to Rang

Place and era: East Asia; 281 BCE (King Zhaoxiang, year 26); relocation duration unknown
What the atlas records: Qin pardoned convicted people and moved them to Rang.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Qin: amnesty relocations to Yan and Deng

Place and era: East Asia; 279 BCE (Zhaoxiang year 28)
What the atlas records: The Shiji records the capture of Yan and Deng and relocation of pardoned people there.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Qin: attack on Chu and convict relocation to Nanyang

Place and era: East Asia; 280 BCE; King Zhaoxiang year 27, duration unknown
What the atlas records: Qin pardoned convicted people and moved them to Nanyang.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Renewed armed conflict and civilian displacement in Kayah (Karenni) State from May 2021

Place and era: Southeast Asia; From May 2021; observed February 2022 and 28 March 2025, open end
What the atlas records: UNHCR family accounts describe repeated flight from Kayah into towns, forests and adjacent Shan.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Russian occupation and flight from Åland during the Great Wrath

Place and era: Europe; 1713–1723
What the atlas records: An Åland history records destruction by Russian forces and flight to Sweden, followed by later return.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Ruzizi Plain intercommunity-violence displacement in South Kivu, 1 December 2023–19 March 2024

Place and era: Central Africa; 1 December 2023–19 March 2024 observation window
What the atlas records: The United Nations report links increased violence in the Ruzizi Plain to population displacement.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Rwandan genocide, mass flight, and refugee return

Place and era: Africa; 1994–1998
What the atlas records: The genocide and RPF victory were followed by a mainly Hutu exodus.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Safavid campaigns and Georgian deportations to Iran

Place and era: West Asia; 1614–1616
What the atlas records: Safavid campaigns brought killings, capture and forced removal from Georgia to Iran.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

SAO Krajina/RSK removal of Croats and other non-Serbs

Place and era: Europe; 1991–1995 CE
What the atlas records: The ICTY found that armed attacks, threats, detention and deportation removed Croats and other non-Serbs from claimed territory.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Sardar Sarovar reservoir displacement

Place and era: South & Southeast Asia; 1987–2019; clearance to full-reservoir milestone
What the atlas records: The Sardar Sarovar reservoir displaced communities in three Indian states.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Scandinavian conquest and settlement in the Danelaw

Place and era: Europe; 865–954 CE
What the atlas records: Scandinavian armies conquered much of Northumbria, East Anglia and Mercia.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Scottish Highland and Island Clearances

Place and era: Europe; c. 1750–1886
What the atlas records: Landowners evicted tenants, moved some to poorer coastal plots, and gave interior land to sheep farms.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Second Congo War internal displacement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, August 1998–June 2003

Place and era: Central Africa; 1998–2003 CE
What the atlas records: The OHCHR report describes forced displacement and violence used to seize territory and areas rich in resources.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Solomon Islands Tensions displacement

Place and era: Melanesia; 1 January 1998–23 July 2003
What the atlas records: The Solomon Islands truth commission separates three stages of forced displacement within its mandate.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Somalia state-collapse and inter- and intra-clan conflict displacement, 1991-1995

Place and era: Horn of Africa; 1991–1995
What the atlas records: The World Bank describes conflict, threats and forced land seizure that drove people from homes in Somalia.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

South Sea Islander recruitment and transport to Queensland

Place and era: Pacific & Oceania; 1863–1904
What the atlas records: Pacific Islanders were brought to Queensland to work under labor contracts.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

South Sudan civil war and mass displacement

Place and era: Northeastern Africa; 2013–2018
What the atlas records: The report describes attacks on civilians and homes, with repeated flight as the conflict shifted.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

South Tyrol Option Agreement population transfer

Place and era: Central Europe; 1939–1943
What the atlas records: South Tyrol residents faced pressure to leave for the German Reich or remain under policies that suppressed their identity.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Soviet collectivization, sedentarization, and the Kazakh famine

Place and era: Central Asia; 1929–1934
What the atlas records: Pianciola links famine to seized grain and collectivization, while local accounts describe forced returns, expulsions and loss of pasture.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Soviet deportation and confinement of Volga Germans

Place and era: Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia; 1941–1955
What the atlas records: Pohl reports forced deportation of Volga Germans to special settlements, followed by confinement and forced labor.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Soviet deportation of Koreans from the Far East

Place and era: Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia; 1937
What the atlas records: The Soviet government ordered Koreans removed from the Far East to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Soviet deportation of Meskhetian Turks and other Muslim communities from Georgia

Place and era: Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia; 1944
What the atlas records: Soviet security agencies removed Muslim communities from the border region of Georgia to Central Asia.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Soviet deportation of the Kalmyks

Place and era: Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia; 1943–1957
What the atlas records: Soviet decrees abolished the Kalmyk ASSR and began collective deportation.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Soviet deportations from Moldova

Place and era: Eastern Europe and Soviet interior; June 1941; July 1949; 1 April 1951
What the atlas records: The museum names three waves of forced removal across Moldova.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Sutrium colonial transition

Place and era: Europe; c. 383 BCE (competing earlier colony label)
What the atlas records: Chiabà describes the Sutrium colony as founded on land previously taken from Falerii.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

São Tomé and Príncipe: plantation settlement and enslaved labor

Place and era: Africa; 1493–1876 (settlement to emancipation transition)
What the atlas records: Africans brought to São Tomé and Príncipe were enslaved in homes, farms and sugar plantations.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Three Brotherhood Alliance offensive and civilian displacement in northern Shan from 26 October 2023

Place and era: Southeast Asia; From 26 October 2023; January 2024 ceasefire marker; observed through 28 March 2025, open end
What the atlas records: OCHA links armed conflict, artillery fire and airstrikes to damaged homes and displacement across northern Shan.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Three Gorges Dam compulsory resettlement

Place and era: East Asia; 1994–2012
What the atlas records: The Three Gorges Project forced residents to move from areas affected by its reservoir and works.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Uganda’s expulsion of residents of South Asian origin

Place and era: Africa; 1972; August order and November departure deadline
What the atlas records: Idi Amin ordered foreign residents of South Asian origin to leave Uganda.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Vietnamese boat flight and first asylum

Place and era: East & Southeast Asia; 1975–1992; mass maritime flight
What the atlas records: After the fall of Saigon, Vietnamese people fled by boat to seek refuge.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Waikato invasions of Taranaki and forced southward movement, 1826–1834

Place and era: Aotearoa New Zealand; 1826–1834 CE
What the atlas records: Te Ara states that the Waikato invasion forced tribal groups south from Taranaki.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry

Yaqui dispossession and deportation to Yucatán

Place and era: Latin America; c. 1900–1910 CE
What the atlas records: Mexican authorities took Yaqui land and sent captives from Sonora to estates in Yucatán.
Map limit: This case has no placed locations or movement lines on the map.
What is needed next: Review the source locations before the atlas draws this case.

Link to this entry