Problems with boundaries

One of the issues that has to be addressed in any regional history is just what boundaries to use. It is easy when you are writing a history based around a defined political entity, so much harder when you are dealing with a less defined entity whose boundaries have shifted with time.

The following map shows the boundaries used by the 1924 Cohen New States Royal Commission. Comments follow the map. The boundaries shown in the map are important for several reasons.

To begin with, this is the area on which the Cohen analysis was based. So analysis of the results of that Royal Commission has to take these boundaries into account.  Then, too, the boundaries reflect opinion at the time.

Not that the boundaries bisect the Hunter Valley, leaving the Lower Hunter in NSW. This reflects perceptions that the lower Hunter would oppose self-government.

Now, as an historian, I have to include the Hunter in my history of New England. It just is. However, I have also to take into account changing perceptions of the boundaries and the way these have affected regional history.

It's an interesting challenge, especially when new state support is on the rise again, raising all the old issues.  

Postscript

In a comments, Greg asked about the boundaries recommended by the Nicholas Commission. My proper map is in storage. However, the following graphic shows the back of a New England New State Movement envelope with the boundaries set out. The boundaries are mainly based on watersheds. The boundaries also encapsulate what has generally been known as the North, although New England new state support extended beyond these boundaries on the slopes and plains.

New England & Queensland - a further note

Last December in New England & Queensland - a truncated relationship I discussed the way the state border affected life and history. I was reminded of this during a recent visit to Queensland's granite belt.

This area is in fact the northern extension into Queensland of the New England Tablelands, so in terms of physical geography it is similar to areas further south.

In Aboriginal times, the indigenous population treated the area as one. Then after European settlement the Tablelands was an entity until the establishment of Queensland as a separate colony in 1859. From that point, histories diverged.

I really need to look more closely at the history of southern Queensland to trace some of these patterns.

New England & Queensland - a truncated relationship

Photo: Gara Gorge near Armidale

My last post focused on the impact of the Dividing Range and especially on the way it affected east-west and north-south communications within New England. But this left open the question of south-north communications between New England and the colony, now state, of Queensland.

On the surface, you would expect this to be substantial. The New England Tablelands extend into Queensland, as do the western slopes and plains. The Tweed River valley is divided by the New England-Queensland boarder. Brisbane, Queensland's political and commercial capital, is closer than Sydney to much of Northern New England. On the surface, you would expect substantial trade and communications. The reality was very different.

In his 1966 PhD thesis, The Geographical Scope of Support for the New State Movement in Northern New South Wales, Professor Eric Woolmington from the University of New England's Geography Department examined the impact of the NSW-Queensland border on local activity.

Using geographic models developed to explain boundaries between the economic catchment areas of competing major centres, Woolmington defined the expected boundary between the spheres of influence of Sydney and Brisbane. This generated an economic boundary well south of Armidale.

Woolmington then examined the actual economic boundary using a variety of measures. In all cases, he found that the economic boundary was well to the north of that expected. He used the phrase marchland areas - areas of major competition between powers - to describe the territory between the projected economic boundary and the actual political boundary.

At one level, it is not suprising that Sydney's influence should have been so pervasive. The city was much bigger than rival Brisbane, especially in the colonial period. New England people had to deal with Sydney as the seat of government and power. Economic links were strong because Sydney merchants financed pastoral activities, supplying goods and selling primary products in return.

However, that is not the end of the story. At a second level, the location of the economic boundary was also strongly influenced by consistent efforts by the Sydney Government to maintain economic control, to centralise power and influence in Sydney. Those efforts, the impact they had at local level, the resistances they created, form another key theme in New England history.