Great freaking work. Have been waiting for someone to do something like this for years.
We also would have some inputs on some of the short-lived territories in the U.S. West that were important and had a role in later regional development. How much do we need to substantiate the addition of a specific territory to the project?
Aside from the "lost state of Franklin", there were territories like Jefferson/Colona, Huron, Lincoln, Shoshone and a number of others that pop up from the late 1850's up to the 1890's.
Yes, Tufte did much to popularize the Minard map related to Napoleon, but there were map dealers that had been intrigued by it and discussing it for quite a while prior to that. Those discussions can leak into academia and pollinate a whole new batch of discussions.
Virality as part of the ebb and flow of popular culture is interesting. But, we find it as interesting when an old map will somehow drift through the pace layers of culture and become a discussion point. That resurfacing of an older map could allude to deeper issues and mechanisms that are ongoing.
You see those dwindling circles of Bison population and it hits you that not only could this be reoccurring, but perhaps the disappearance of other species could have similar cascading reactions. Some have pointed out that with the loss of the primary food source of the Bison, friction with settlers escalated quickly. It also had huge impacts in the soil of the West. Maybe the dust bowl wouldn't have been as cataclysmic.
----
Unfortunately we're concerned that even viral maps can be lost over time. They become dead links. And somehow even the wonderful people at Internet Archive can't save everything.
This is part of why we push cartographers we know to print something they've done at the end of each year. Paper is astoundingly enduring. If there was one map that you did and it resonates with you, please print it out. Build a small portfolio of hard copies over the next few years. Your work is worth printing!
Was tremendously intrigued to see Marcou's name and position on the topic that came up in this discussion. He's a titan in historical geology.
But I can't think of any early maps that identify this people group or mountain range. Especially early on (16th -17th century). Solid, reliable depictions of the Central American interior come late, many in the late 18th and early 19th century.
Identifying people groups was pretty darned important. Think to those early maps for New England, identifying people groups were as abundant as placenames and detailed landform. Take the Blaeu for New England, abundant in native peoples...
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~3...
I appreciate Marcou's map (1890) being a historical recreation of that region of Nicaragua, but I would have expected this tribal name to be an anchoring notation throughout early maps of the region from the beginning. But maybe I'm missing something.
We also would have some inputs on some of the short-lived territories in the U.S. West that were important and had a role in later regional development. How much do we need to substantiate the addition of a specific territory to the project? Aside from the "lost state of Franklin", there were territories like Jefferson/Colona, Huron, Lincoln, Shoshone and a number of others that pop up from the late 1850's up to the 1890's.