Approach

Mapping al-Shawwam adopts a source-first approach to historical geography. Every location, boundary, and spatial relationship in the platform derives from documentary evidence—travel accounts, administrative records, geographic dictionaries, or scholarly secondary sources. We do not interpolate missing data or manufacture coordinates where sources provide only textual descriptions.

This creates an intentionally "incomplete" map that reflects the uneven documentation of historical geography. Some regions (like major trade routes) are densely described; others appear sparse not because they were uninhabited but because they were less frequently documented by the sources we currently access.

Historical geographic data is inherently uncertain. Place names change, boundaries shift, sources contradict each other, and coordinates are often absent. Rather than hide this uncertainty, we make it explicit:

• Confidence scores — Each location has a confidence rating based on source quality and specificity
• Multiple attestations — When sources disagree, we present all versions with citations
• Temporal precision — We distinguish between "18th century" and "September 1742" level temporal specificity
• Spatial precision — Point locations vs. regional descriptions vs. route segments have different geometric representations

Working with Arabic historical sources introduces specific methodological challenges:

• Orthographic variation — Standardizing spellings across manuscripts and printed texts
• Transliteration — Following consistent systems (typically IJMES) while respecting local pronunciation
• Name variants — Tracking how places are referenced differently in Arabic vs. Ottoman Turkish vs. European sources
• OCR limitations — Historical Arabic typography creates unique challenges for text extraction

Our data pipeline includes specialized stages for Arabic text normalization and name matching.

Historical geography is never neutral. The sources we access, the places we prioritize, and the boundaries we draw all reflect power structures—both historical and contemporary. We acknowledge:

• Archive bias toward state records and elite perspectives
• Geographic bias toward trade routes and administrative centers
• Linguistic bias toward Arabic and European-language sources
• Contemporary political implications of historical boundary visualization

While we strive for transparency about these limitations, we recognize that simply documenting bias does not eliminate it. This remains an ongoing methodological challenge.